ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2024
Impact of prone position on dead-space fraction in COVID-19 related acute respiratory distress syndrome.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCOVID-19 Related Acute Respiratory Syndrome (C-ARDS) is characterized by a mismatch between respiratory mechanics and hypoxemia, suggesting increased dead-space fraction (DSF). Prone position is a cornerstone treatment of ARDS under invasive mechanical ventilation reducing mortality. We sought to investigate the impact of prone position on DSF in C-ARDS in a cohort of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.
methodswe retrospectively analysed data from 85 invasively mechanically ventilated patients with C-ARDS in supine and in prone positions, hospitalized in Intensive Care Unit (Reims University Hospital), between November, 1st 2020 and November, 1st 2022. DSF was estimated via 3 formulas usable at patients' bedside, based on partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) and end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2).
resultsthere was no difference of DSF between supine and prone position, using the 3 formulas. According to Enghoff, Frankenfield and Gattinoni equations, DSF in supine vs. prone position was in median respectively [IQR]: 0.29 [0.13-0.45] vs. 0.31 [0.19-0.51] (p = 0.37), 0.5 [0.48-0.52] vs. 0.51 [0.49-0.53] (p = 0.43), and 0.71 [0.55-0.87] vs. 0.69 [0.57-0.81], (p = 0.32).
conclusionprone position did not change DSF in C-ARDS.
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.