ArticleCritical care explorations2025
Mechanical Power in Pressure-Controlled Ventilation: A Simple and Reliable Bedside Method.
Article in Critical care explorations, 2025. 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.
- Discrepancies between estimated and geometrically derived mechanical power in invasively ventilated patients - insights from a randomized clinical trial.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2026Article
- Association of compliance-normalized airway and transpulmonary mechanical power with mortality in PARDS.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Observational
- Standardized pre-bronchoscopy mechanical power and KPC resistance as predictors of mortality in ventilated ICU patients: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMechanical power (MP) represents the amount of energy applied by the ventilator to the respiratory system over time. There are two main methods to calculate MP in mechanical ventilation. The first is the geometric method, which directly measures the dynamic inspiratory area of the pressure-volume loop during the respiratory cycle. The second involves using various algebraic equations to estimate MP. However, almost all calculations are either complex or not reliable compared with the geometric method, considered the gold standard. This study aimed to develop an easy to use, reliable equation for bedside calculation of MP and to compare its accuracy with other existing equations for calculating MP.
methodsIn a preliminary study, we measured MP in 56 cases who were mechanically ventilated and without spontaneous breathing efforts. The measurements were done at the ICU of a single university medical center in the Netherlands.
resultsWe found that the MP can be accurately calculated using an equation that incorporates the plateau pressure in 56 cases in 42 patients. The MP estimated with our new proposed equation (MP calculated using plateau pressure) correlated well with the reference value of MP with a bias of 0.2 J/min. The 95% limits of agreement (LoAs) were -3.1 to + 3.4 J/min. Other equations give the following bias and LoAs; bias of -0.8, LoA -3.8 to 1.9 J/min (van der Meijden equation), bias of -1.9, LoA -3.7 to -0.0 J/min (comprehensive Becher equation), bias of -2.4, LoA -4.5 to -0.3 J/min (simplified Becher equation), and a bias of -1.9, LoA -3.7 to 0.1 J/min (linear model equation).
conclusionsThe equation we propose to calculate MP in pressure-controlled ventilation is a reliable, simple, and accurate alternative for the previously published equations. Consequently, this method is highly suitable for routine use in clinical practice.
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.