Trial reportPloS one2024
Lung impedance changes during awake prone positioning in COVID-19. A non-randomized cross-over study.
Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physiologic effects of prone positioning on gas exchange and ventilation-perfusion matching in awake patients with AHRF.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2024Trial
- Recommendations for lung ventilation and perfusion assessment with chest electrical impedance tomography in critically ill adult patients: an international evidence-based and expert Delphi consensus study.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Lung electrical impedance tomography during positioning, weaning and chest physiotherapy in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a narrative review.Annals of intensive care · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effects of awake prone positioning (APP) on respiratory mechanics in patients with COVID-19 are not well characterized. The aim of this study was to investigate changes of global and regional lung volumes during APP compared with the supine position using electrical lung impedance tomography (EIT) in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis exploratory non-randomized cross-over study was conducted at two university hospitals in Sweden between January and May 2021. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit with confirmed COVID-19, an arterial cannula in place, a PaO2/FiO2 ratio <26.6 kPa (<200 mmHg) and high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventilation were eligible for inclusion. EIT-data were recorded at supine baseline, at 30 and 60 minutes after APP-initiation, and 30 minutes after supine repositioning. The primary outcomes were changes in global and regional tidal impedance variation (TIV), center of ventilation (CoV), global and regional delta end-expiratory lung-impedance (dEELI) and global inhomogeneity (GI) index at the end of APP compared with supine baseline. Data were reported as median (IQR).
resultsAll patients (n = 10) were male and age was 64 (47-73) years. There were no changes in global or regional TIV, CoV or GI-index during the intervention. dEELI increased from supine reference value 0 to 1.51 (0.32-3.62) 60 minutes after APP (median difference 1.51 (95% CI 0.19-5.16), p = 0.04) and returned to near baseline values after supine repositioning. Seven patients (70%) showed an increase >0.20 in dEELI during APP. The other EIT-variables did not change during APP compared with baseline.
conclusionAwake prone positioning was associated with a transient lung recruiting effect without changes in ventilation distribution measured with EIT in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19.
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.