Trial reportRespiratory care2024
Optimal Prone Position Duration in Patients With ARDS Due to COVID-19: The Omelette Pilot Trial.
Trial report in Respiratory care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness and safety of prolonged prone positioning in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS): a systematic review and meta-analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of proning with and without inhaled pulmonary vasodilators and neuromuscular blocking agents in COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome.World journal of critical care medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProne position (PP) has been widely used in the COVID-19 pandemic for ARDS management. However, the optimal length of a PP session is still controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of prolonged versus standard PP duration in subjects with ARDS due to COVID-19.
methodsThis was a single-center, randomized controlled, parallel, and open pilot trial including adult subjects diagnosed with severe ARDS due to COVID-19 receiving invasive mechanical ventilation that met criteria for PP between March-September 2021. Subjects were randomized to the intervention group of prolonged PP (48 h) versus the standard of care PP (∼16 h). The primary outcome variable for the trial was ventilator-free days (VFDs) to day 28.
resultsWe enrolled 60 subjects. VFDs were not significantly different in the standard PP group (18 [interquartile range [IQR] 0-23] VFDs vs 7.5 [IQR 0-19.0] VFDs; difference, -10.5 (95% CI -3.5 to 19.0,
conclusionsAmong subjects with severe ARDS due to COVID-19, there was no difference in 28-d VFDs between prolonged and standard PP strategy. However, prolonged PP was associated with a longer ICU stay, increased use of neuromuscular blockers, and greater muscular impairment. This suggests that prolonged PP is not superior to the current recommended standard of care.
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.