Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38505046›Full record

ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024

Phenotypes of esophageal pressure response to the change of positive end-expiratory pressure in patients with moderate acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Wei Cheng, Jing Jiang, Yun Long, Siyi Yuan, Yujing Sun, Zhanqi Zhao, Huaiwu He

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Wei Cheng *Department of Critical Care Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Jing Jiang *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Chongqing General Hospital, Chongqing, China.
Yun LongDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Siyi YuanDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Yujing SunDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Zhanqi ZhaoSchool of Biomedical Engineering, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Huaiwu HeDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Peking Union Medical College Hospital · CNChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNFirst People's Hospital of Chongqing · CNFurtwangen University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Esophageal pressure (Pes) has been used as a surrogate of pleural pressure (Ppl) to titrate positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. The relationship between Pes and PEEP remains undetermined. Methods: A gastric tube with a balloon catheter was inserted to monitor Pes in moderate to severe ARDS patients who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation. To assess the end-expiratory Pes response (ΔPes) to PEEP changes (ΔPEEP), the PEEP level was decreased and increased subsequently (with an average change of 3 cmH Results: In total, 54 series of PEEP adjustments were performed in 18 ARDS patients. Of these patients, 12 were classified as PEEP-dependent type, and six were classified as PEEP-independent type. During the PEEP adjustment, end-expiratory Pes changed significantly in the PEEP-dependent patients, who had a Pes of 10.8 (7.9, 12.3), 12.5 (10.5, 14.9), and 14.5 (13.1, 18.3) cmH Conclusions: Two types of Pes phenotypes were identified according to the ΔPes to ΔPEEP. The underlying mechanisms and implications for clinical practice require further exploration.

Indexed as

acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)Esophageal pressure (Pes)pleural pressure (Ppl)positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP)transpulmonary pressure

Identifiers

PMID38505046
PMCPMC10944771
OpenAlexW4392244721

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.