ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025
The effects of different prone ventilation strategies on mechanical power and respiratory mechanics in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients: a prospective, single-center observational study.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Different prone ventilation strategies: impact on mechanical power and respiratory mechanics in acute respiratory distress syndrome.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- The effects of lateral-prone positioning on mechanical power and respiratory mechanics in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients: insights and research extensions.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common pathological condition among critically ill patients that often requires mechanical ventilation support. However, mechanical ventilation increases the risk of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). Different prone ventilation strategies may have varying effects on mechanical power (MP) and respiratory mechanics. This study aimed to compare the effects of prone ventilation and lateral-prone ventilation on MP and respiratory mechanics in ARDS patients to assess the relative risks of VILI associated with these strategies. Methods: This prospective, single-center observational study employed a randomized trial. One hundred and twenty-two patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS admitted to the Department of Critical Care Medicine at Lishui Central Hospital between December 2021 and April 2024 were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either prone or lateral-prone ventilation strategies. The primary outcomes included MP, driving pressure (DP), static lung compliance (Cstat), airway resistance (Raw), the oxygenation index [i.e., the oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen (SpO Results: The baseline characteristics of the patients, such as age, gender, and body mass index, were comparable between the two groups. No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE-II) score. No significant differences were observed in the SpO Conclusions: Compared to prone ventilation, lateral-prone ventilation significantly reduced MP in ARDS patients. The early adoption of lateral-prone ventilation may help mitigate the risk of VILI. This strategy holds clinical promise and warrants further validation and optimization.
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.