ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2024
Standard versus individualised positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) compared by electrical impedance tomography in neurocritical care: a pilot prospective single centre study.
Article in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of individualized PEEP titration on intraoperative cardiac output in thoracoscopic lung surgery: a prospective randomized trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Recent advances in experimental and clinical applications of chest electrical impedance tomography: a narrative review.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIndividualised bedside adjustment of mechanical ventilation is a standard strategy in acute coma neurocritical care patients. This involves customising positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), which could improve ventilation homogeneity and arterial oxygenation. This study aimed to determine whether PEEP titrated by electrical impedance tomography (EIT) results in different lung ventilation homogeneity when compared to standard PEEP of 5 cmH
methodsIn this prospective single-centre study, we evaluated 55 acute adult neurocritical care patients starting controlled ventilation with PEEPs close to 5 cmH
resultsThe mean PEEP value before titration was 4.75 ± 0.94 cmH
conclusionAdjusting PEEP to values derived from PEEP titration guided by EIT does not provide any significant changes in ventilation homogeneity as assessed by EIT to ventilated patients with healthy lungs, provided the change in PEEP does not exceed three cmH
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.