SynthesisMedicine2025
Efficacy of prone positioning in awake ventilation for COVID-19: Umbrella review.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Observational
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
backgroundAwake-prone positioning was widely used in COVID-19, combined with high-flow nasal oxygen therapy or noninvasive ventilation, effectively reducing intubation, and the effect on mortality is controversial. We aim to reevaluate the efficacy of awake-prone positioning in COVID-19 and summarize the protocol for awake-prone positioning.
methodsWe gathered data on the treatment of COVID-19 using awake-prone positioning from Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and CNKI. All the included studies were published between 2019 and 2023. Two researchers used the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool to assess the methodological quality of the literature. The evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment and Evaluation system.
resultsThirteen articles were included. The quality assessment using AMSTAR2 revealed that 3 articles were high quality, and 4 were moderate quality. The evidence quality assessment of 41 primary outcomes by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation indicates that 9 indicators were of moderate quality, 21 were of low quality, and 6 were of very low quality.
conclusionsThe review demonstrates high methodological quality, but the evidence quality of its outcome indicators is low. Awake-prone position has been shown to decrease intubation and improve oxygenation in COVID-19 patients. It is recommended to consult the latest quality assessment standards to develop more rigorous experimental protocols, improve research quality, and facilitate the translation of research findings.
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.