Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40142875›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Fluid Management: Finding the Perfect Balance.

Irene Sbaraini Zernini, Domenico Nocera, Rosanna D'Albo, Tommaso Tonetti

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. AcuteToxins · 2025
    Review
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

4 authors.

Irene Sbaraini ZerniniDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy.
Domenico NoceraDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0009-0005-6833-7480
Rosanna D'AlboDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy.
Tommaso TonettiDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9676-3595

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ARDS is a challenging syndrome in which the hallmark is alveolar epithelium damage, with the consequent extravasation of fluids into the interstitium and alveolar space. Patients with severe ARDS almost always require mechanical ventilation and aggressive fluid resuscitation, at least in the initial phases. The increased intrathoracic pressure during positive pressure ventilation reduces cardiac output, worsening the circulatory status of these patients even more. In this pathological context, fluid therapies serve as a means to restore intravascular volume but can simultaneously play a detrimental role, increasing the amount of liquid in the lungs and worsening gas exchange and lung mechanics. Indeed, clinical research suggests that fluid overload leads to worsening outcomes, mostly in terms of gas exchange, days of mechanical ventilation, and ICU stay duration. For these reasons, this review aims to provide basic information about ARDS pathophysiology and heart-lung interactions, the understanding of which is essential to guide fluid therapy, together with the close monitoring of hemodynamics and fluid responsiveness.

Indexed as

ARDSfluid responsivenessfluid therapyheart–lung interactionmechanical ventilation

Identifiers

PMID40142875
PMCPMC11942663

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.