SynthesisBMC pulmonary medicine2023
Effects of prone positioning on ARDS outcomes of trauma and surgical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- ARDS management in trauma patients.Intensive care medicine · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProne position is an option for rescue therapy for acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, there are limited relevant data among trauma and surgical patients, who may be at increased risk for complications following position changes. This study aimed to identify the benefits and risks of proning in this patient subgroup.
methodsFollow the PRISMA 2020, MEDLINE and EMBASE database searches were conducted. Additional search of relevant primary literature and review articles was also performed. A random effects model was used to estimate the PF ratio, mortality rate, mechanical ventilator days, and intensive care unit length of stay using Review Manager 5.4.1 software.
resultsOf 1,128 studies, 15 articles were included in this meta-analysis. The prone position significantly improved the PF ratio compared with the supine position (mean difference, 79.26; 95% CI, 53.38 to 105.13). The prone position group had a statistically significant mortality benefit (risk ratio [RR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.67). Although there was no significant difference in the intensive care unit length of stay, the prone position significantly decreased mechanical ventilator days (-2.59; 95% CI, -4.21 to -0.97). On systematic review, minor complications were frequent, especially facial edema. There were no differences in local wound complications.
conclusionsThe prone position has comparable complications to the supine position. With its benefits of increased oxygenation and decreased mortality, the prone position can be considered for trauma and surgical patients. A prospective multicenter study is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.