ArticleBMJ open2025
Comparison of carbon dioxide control during pressure controlled versus pressure-regulated volume controlled ventilation in children (CoCO2): protocol for a pilot digital randomised controlled trial in a quaternary paediatric intensive care unit.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05843123 (Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Control During Pressure Controlled), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Control During Pressure Controlled (PC) Versus Pressure Regulated Volume Control (PRVC) Ventilation in Children (CoCO2): a Digital, Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDigital trials are a promising strategy to increase the evidence base for common interventions and may convey considerable efficiency benefits in trial conduct. Although paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) are rich in routine electronic data, highly pragmatic digital trials in this field remain scarce. There are unmet evidence needs for optimal mechanical ventilation modes in paediatric intensive care. We aim to test the feasibility of a digital PICU trial comparing two modes of invasive mechanical ventilation using carbon dioxide (CO METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Single-centre, open-labelled, randomised controlled pilot trial with two parallel treatment arms comparing pressure control versus pressure-regulated volume control. Patients are eligible if aged <18 years, weighing >2 kg, have an arterial line and require >60 min of mechanical ventilation during PICU hospitalisation at the University Children's Hospital Zurich. Exclusion criteria include cardiac shunt lesions, pulmonary hypertension under treatment and intracranial hypertension. CO ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received ethical approval from the Cantonal Ethics Commission of Zurich (identification number: 2022-00829). Study results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and other media like podcasts. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05843123.
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.