ArticleCritical care science2024
Comparison of the effectiveness of awake-prone positioning and high-flow nasal oxygen in patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure between different waves.
Article in Critical care science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A predictive model for early intubation in patients with COVID-19-induced acute hypoxemic respiratory failure under awake prone position.Annals of intensive care · 2025Article
- Optimizing non-intubated respiratory support in COVID-19: evaluating the impact of bundle of care strategy on awake prone positioning tolerance. Author's reply.Intensive care medicine · 2025Article
- Bringing credibility to observational research in critical care: the case of target trial emulation designs.Critical care science · 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
37 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness of the awake-prone position on relevant clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure requiring high-flow nasal oxygen between different waves in Argentina.
methodsThis multicenter, prospective cohort study included adult patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure requiring high-flow nasal oxygen. The main exposure position was the awake-prone position (≥ 6 hours/day) compared to the non-prone position. The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation, and the secondary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The inverse probability weighting-propensity score was used to adjust the conditional probability of treatment assignment. We then adjusted for contextual variables that varied over time and compared the effectiveness between the first and second waves.
resultsA total of 728 patients were included: 360 during the first wave and 368 during the second wave, of whom 195 (54%) and 227 (62%) remained awake-prone for a median (p25 - 75) of 12 (10 - 16) and 14 (8 - 17) hours/day, respectively (Awake-Prone Position Group). The ORs (95%CIs) for endotracheal intubation in the Awake-Prone Position Group were 0.25 (0.13 - 0.46) and 0.19 (0.09 - 0.31) for the first and second waves, respectively (p = 0.41 for comparison between waves). The ORs for in-hospital mortality in the awake-prone position were 0.35 (0.17 - 0.65) and 0.22 (0.12 - 0.43), respectively (p = 0.44 for comparison between waves).
conclusionThe awake-prone position was associated with a reduction in the risk of endotracheal intubation and in-hospital mortality. These effects were independent of the context in which the intervention was applied, and no differences were observed between the different waves.
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.