ReviewCureus2025
Comparison Between Synchronized Intermittent Mandatory Ventilation (SIMV) and Adaptive Support Ventilation (ASV) on Patient Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- The predictive value of serological markers for successful weaning and 30-day mortality in patients with severe intracerebral hemorrhage.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- Advances in mechanical ventilation for critically ill patients: strategies for respiratory support and complication management.American journal of translational research · 2026Review
- Ventilation mode effect on weaning outcome in COPD with type II respiratory failure.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In critically ill patients, the choice of mechanical ventilation modes can have a significant impact on patient outcomes. The comparative efficacy of adaptive support ventilation (ASV) and synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) remains debated in the literature. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of ASV compared to SIMV in critically ill patients. For this systematic review and meta-analysis, a thorough search was undertaken in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. Primary outcomes included length of mechanical ventilation, ventilator days, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), whereas secondary outcomes focused on physiological parameters (e.g., P-peak, hemodynamics, gas exchange). A total of 11 studies involving 627 patients were included. The results showed that ASV significantly reduced the length of mechanical ventilation (mean difference (MD): -0.80 days; 95% CI: -1.11 to -0.50; p<0.00001) and ventilator days (MD: -1.42 days; 95% CI: -1.83 to -1.01; p<0.00001) compared to SIMV. However, no differences were observed in ICU LOS (p=0.25), heart rate (p=0.17), minute volume (p=0.72), mean arterial pressure (p=0.26), PCO
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.