ReviewBMC pulmonary medicine2024
Effectiveness and safety of awake prone positioning in COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: an overview of systematic reviews.
Review in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nursing Practice of Airway Care Interventions and Prone Positioning in ICU Patients with COVID-19-A Dutch National Survey.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate and summarize systematic reviews of the effects and safety of awake prone positioning for COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, CSPD, CCD and CBM from their inception to March 28, 2023. Systematic reviews (SRs) of awake prone positioning (APP) for COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure in adults were included. Two reviewers screened the eligible articles, and four reviewers in pairs extracted data and assessed the methodological quality/certainty of the evidence of all included SRs by AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools. The overlap of primary studies was measured by calculating corrected covered areas. Data from the included reviews were synthesized with a narrative description.
resultsA total of 11 SRs were included. The methodological quality of SRs included 1 "High", 4 "Moderate", 2 "Low" and 4 "Critically low" by AMSTAR 2. With the GRADE system, no high-quality evidence was found, and only 14 outcomes provided moderate-quality evidence. Data synthesis of the included SR outcomes showed that APP reduced the risk of requiring intubation (11 SRs) and improving oxygenation (3 SRs), whereas reduced significant mortality was not found in RCT-based SRs. No significant difference was observed in the incidence of adverse events between groups (8 SRs). The corrected covered area index was 27%, which shows very high overlap among studies.
conclusionThe available SRs suggest that APP has benefits in terms of reducing intubation rates and improving oxygenation for COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, without an increased risk of adverse events. The conclusion should be treated with caution because of the generally low quality of methodology and evidence.
trial registrationThe protocol for this review was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42023400986. Registered 15 April 2023.
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.