ArticleRespiratory care2024
Extended Prone Position and 90-Day Mortality in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With COVID-19.
Article 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.
- 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
- Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury: The Unseen Challenge in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProne positioning (PP) has demonstrated its potential for improving outcomes in patients with ARDS who require invasive mechanical ventilation. However, the ability of prolonged proning to reduce mortality in patients with COVID-19 specifically, sessions lasting > 24 h remains uncertain.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we examined 158 subjects with COVID-19 pneumonia who required mechanical ventilation due to moderate-to-severe ARDS. Seventy-six subjects were placed in standard PP and 82 in extended PP, defined as prone sessions lasting at least 32 h. Our primary aim was to evaluate the effect of EPP on 90-d survival in subjects with COVID-19 with acute severe respiratory failure. To ensure the reliability of our findings and to minimize bias, we applied 3 adjustment approaches: cardinality matching (CM), matching weighting (MW), and inverse probability of treatment weighting with stabilized and trimmed weights (SW). We used Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models to analyze the effects of EPP on 90-d mortality and sensitivity analysis by calculating E-values.
resultsThe overall crude 90-d mortality rate was 31.7%. The unadjusted 90-d mortality rates were 19.5% in the EPP group and 44.7% in the SPP group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.35 [95% CI 0.19- 0.63],
conclusionsExtended PP was associated with improved 90-d survival in subjects with COVID-19 undergoing mechanical ventilation for severe ARDS. These findings suggest the potential benefit of EPP in the management of COVID-19-related respiratory failure. Further research and prospective studies are warranted to confirm and elucidate the underlying mechanisms of this association.
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.