Trial reportAnaesthesia2025
Adjustment of positive end-expiratory pressure based on body mass index during general anaesthesia: a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in Anaesthesia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of individualized PEEP titration on intraoperative cardiac output in thoracoscopic lung surgery: a prospective randomized trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Obesity: biomechanical implications for mechanical ventilation.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Review
- Comparing the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine-assisted lumbar plexus block and epidural anesthesia for patients undergoing fixation for femoral shaft fracture.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- EIT-guided individualized PEEP titration versus conventional lung-protective ventilation to prevent pulmonary complications in laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Intraoperative desaturation in pediatric patients at high altitude: incidence, risk factors, and a non-linear body weight safety threshold.Frontiers in pediatrics · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLung-protective ventilation is essential for preventing postoperative pulmonary complications. While maintaining a low driving pressure and optimising PEEP is of importance, the ideal strategy remains contentious. This study evaluated whether adjusting PEEP based on BMI, compared with standard PEEP, could reduce driving pressure and peri-operative loss of lung aeration.
methodsWe conducted a randomised controlled, patient-blinded, single-centre superiority trial with two parallel groups. Adult patients undergoing surgery with general anaesthesia who required tracheal intubation were assigned randomly to either standardised PEEP (PEEP = 5 cmH
resultsSixty patients were enrolled and allocated randomly. Adjustment of PEEP according to BMI/3 was associated with a significantly lower driving pressure, with a median (IQR [range]) of 8.9 (7.1-10.4 [5.2-14.9]) cmH DISCUSSION: In patients without major pulmonary disease who were undergoing non-cardiothoracic surgeries with tracheal intubation, adjusting PEEP based on a calculation of BMI/3 improved lung mechanics and reduced postoperative loss of lung aeration. This approach provides a straightforward and pragmatic method for individualising PEEP in patients undergoing general anaesthesia.
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.