Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39842032›Full record

Observational studyThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2025

Epidemiology, Ventilation Management, and Outcomes in Invasively Ventilated Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients: An Analysis of Four Observational Studies in Four Countries on Two Continents.

Siebe G Blok, Luigi Pisani, Elisa Estenssoro, Juliana Carvalho Ferreira, Michela Botta, Ana Motos, Ignacio Martin-Loeches, Antoni Torres, Marcus J Schultz, Frederique Paulus and 1 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Siebe G BlokDepartment of Intensive Care, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Luigi PisaniDepartment of Intensive Care, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Elisa EstenssoroDepartment of Intensive Care, Hospital Interzonal de Agudos General San Martin La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Juliana Carvalho FerreiraDepartment of Pulmonology, Instituto do Coracao (InCor), Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Michela BottaDepartment of Intensive Care, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ana MotosDepartement of Pulmonology, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Ignacio Martin-LoechesDepartment of Intensive Care, Multidisciplinary Intensive Care Research Organization (MICRO), St. James' Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Antoni TorresDepartement of Pulmonology, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Marcus J SchultzDepartment of Intensive Care, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Frederique PaulusDepartment of Intensive Care, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
David M P van MeenenDepartment of Intensive Care, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Epidemiology, ventilator management, and outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) because of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been described extensively but have never been compared between countries. We performed an individual patient data analysis of four observational studies to compare epidemiology, ventilator management, and outcomes. We used propensity score weighting to control for confounding factors. The analysis included 6,702 patients: 1,500 from Argentina, 844 from Brazil, 975 from the Netherlands, and 3,383 from Spain. There were substantial differences in baseline characteristics between countries. There were small differences in ventilation management. Intensive care unit mortality was higher in Argentina and Brazil compared with the Netherlands and Spain (59.6% and 56.6% versus 32.1% and 34.7%; P <0.001). The median number of days free from ventilation and alive at day 28 was equally low (0 [0-7], 0 [0-18], 1 [0-16], and 0 [0-16] days, respectively; P = 0.03), and the median number of days free from ventilation and alive at day 60 was higher in the Netherlands and Spain (0 [0-37], 0 [0-50], 33 [0-48], and 26 [0-48] days, respectively; P <0.001). Propensity score matching confirmed the outcome differences. Thus, the outcome of COVID-19 ARDS patients in Argentina and Brazil was substantially worse compared with that of patients in the Netherlands and Spain. It is unlikely that this results from differences in case mix or ventilation management.

Indexed as

COVID-19Respiration, ArtificialRespiratory Distress SyndromeAdultAgedArgentinaBrazilFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPropensity ScoreSARS-CoV-2Spain

Identifiers

PMID39842032
PMCPMC11965764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.