Observational studyCritical care (London, England)2025
Driving pressure vs. oxygenation-based PEEP titration strategies in ARDS patients: a physiological study.
Observational study in Critical care (London, England), 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of three different PEEP titration strategies in ARDS patients, one based on driving pressure and two based on oxygenation (one PEEP level according to the high PEEP/FiO
methodsProspective observational study including 35 sedated, paralysed and mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS according to the Berlin definition within 48 h from admission to a medical-surgical ICU. Each patient underwent PEEP titration according to a clinical (based on driving pressure), empirical (based on high PEEP/FiO
resultsIn the whole population, when comparing empirical versus clinical PEEP (15 [10-18] vs. 10 [8-10] cmH
conclusionsClinical PEEP titration provided better respiratory mechanics in terms of lower end-inspiratory airway pressure, lung stress and elastance and lower PaCO
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.