ArticleBMJ open2024
Consensus statements on the utility of defining ARDS and the utility of past and current definitions of ARDS-protocol for a Delphi study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06159465 (Consensus Statements on the Utility of Defining ARDS and the Utility of Past and Current Definitions of ARDS--Protocol for a Delphi Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
Consensus Statements on the Utility of Defining ARDS and the Utility of Past and Current Definitions of ARDS--Protocol for a Delphi Study
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Underreporting of acute kidney injury in randomized trials of acute respiratory distress syndrome with mortality endpoints: a systematic review.Critical care science · 2026Pooled it
- Beyond binary: rethinking subphenotyping in ARDS as a continuous spectrum.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- From the Oracle of Delphi to Intensive Care Unit Guidelines: Consensus Building Using the Delphi Method.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
- Imaging and pulmonary function techniques in ARDS diagnosis and management: current insights and challenges.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Review
- Defining the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome - Are You a Splitter or a Lumper? The Choice Matters more than You Think.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025Article
- A narrative review on the future of ARDS: evolving definitions, pathophysiology, and tailored management.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Review
- Development of the Whole Day Matters Toolkit for Primary Care: a consensus-building study to mobilize national public health guidelines in practice.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2025Article
- Improving the Transparency and Replicability of Consensus Methods: Respiratory Medicine as a Case Example.Pragmatic and observational research · 2024Article
- Heart-lung crosstalk in acute respiratory distress syndrome.Frontiers in physiology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), marked by acute hypoxemia and bilateral pulmonary infiltrates, has been defined in multiple ways since its first description. This Delphi study aims to collect global opinions on the conceptual framework of ARDS, assess the usefulness of components within current and past definitions and investigate the role of subphenotyping. The varied expertise of the panel will provide valuable insights for refining future ARDS definitions and improving clinical management.
methodsA diverse panel of 35-40 experts will be selected based on predefined criteria. Multiple choice questions (MCQs) or 7-point Likert-scale statements will be used in the iterative Delphi rounds to achieve consensus on key aspects related to the utility of definitions and subphenotyping. The Delphi rounds will be continued until a stable agreement or disagreement is achieved for all statements. ANALYSIS: Consensus will be considered as reached when a choice in MCQs or Likert-scale statement achieved ≥80% of votes for agreement or disagreement. The stability will be checked by non-parametric χ ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will be conducted in full concordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and will be reported according to CREDES guidance. This study has been granted an ethical approval waiver by the NMC Healthcare Regional Research Ethics Committee, Dubai (NMCHC/CR/DXB/REC/APP/002), owing to the nature of the research. Informed consent will be obtained from all panellists before the start of the Delphi process. The study will be published in a peer-review journal with the authorship agreed as per TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06159465.
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.