Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38214045›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine2023

Outcomes in critically ill patients after diaphragmatic stimulation on ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction: a systematic review.

Alessandro Panelli, Julius J Grunow, Michael A VERFUß, Hermann G Bartels, Zarina Brass, Stefan J Schaller

Open access · diamondAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Alessandro PanelliDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (CCM/CVK), Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.
Julius J GrunowDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (CCM/CVK), Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.
Michael A VERFUßDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (CCM/CVK), Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.
Hermann G BartelsDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (CCM/CVK), Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.
Zarina BrassSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Stefan J SchallerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (CCM/CVK), Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany - stefan.schaller@charite.de.
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DETechnical University of Munich · DEUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMechanical ventilation (MV) is a lifesaving procedure for critically ill patients. Diaphragm activation and stimulation may counteract side effects, such as ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction (VIDD). The effects of stimulation on diaphragm atrophy and patient outcomes are reported in this systematic review. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Studies investigating diaphragmatic stimulation versus standard of care in critically ill patients and evaluating clinical outcomes were extracted from a Medline database last on January 23, 2023, after registration in Prospero (CRD42021259353). Selected studies included the investigation of diaphragmatic stimulation versus standard of care in critically ill patients, an evaluation of the clinical outcomes. These included muscle atrophy, VIDD, weaning failure, mortality, quality of life, ventilation time, diaphragmatic function, length of stay in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), and length of hospital stay. All articles were independently evaluated by two reviewers according to their abstract and title and, secondly, a full texts evaluation by two independent reviewers was performed. To resolve diverging evaluations, a third reviewer was consulted to reach a final decision. Data were extracted by the reviewers following the Oxford 2011 levels of evidence guidelines and summarized accordingly. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Seven studies were extracted and descriptively synthesized, since a metanalysis was not feasible. Patients undergoing diaphragm stimulation had moderate evidence of higher maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP), less atrophy, less mitochondrial respiratory dysfunction, less oxidative stress, less molecular atrophy, shorter MV time, shorter ICU length of stay, longer survival, and better SF-36 scores than control.

conclusionsEvidence of the molecular and histological benefits of diaphragmatic stimulation is limited. The results indicate positive clinical effects of diaphragm activation with a moderate level of evidence for MIP and a low level of evidence for other outcomes. Diaphragm activation could be a therapeutic solution to avoid diaphragm atrophy, accelerate weaning, shorten MV time, and counteract VIDD; however, better-powered studies are needed to increase the level of evidence.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessDiaphragmHumansMuscular AtrophyQuality of LifeRespiration, ArtificialVentilators, Mechanical

Identifiers

PMID38214045
PMCPMC10794987
OpenAlexW4390795500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.