Observational studyThe Lancet. Respiratory medicine2025
Evaluating the generalisability of formulas used to set tidal volumes in mechanically ventilated patients: an observational, multicohort, retrospective study.
Observational study in The Lancet. Respiratory medicine, 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.
- Reconsidering the use of predicted body weight when setting tidal volumes in female patients.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Examining the intersection of biologic sex and predicted body weight in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Sex-related differences in lung injury distribution and outcomes in COVID-19 acute respiratory failure: insights from the CT-COVID19 multicenter study group.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2026Article
- Protective Ventilation During Controlled and Partial Ventilatory Support in ARDS: Clinical-Physiological Background and Monitoring.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Advances in Imaging and Physiology-Guided Personalized Care in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLung-protective mechanical ventilation with low tidal volume (V
methodsIn this observational, multicohort, retrospective study we compared ARMA PBW with PFVC estimated with the Global Lung Initiative 2012 reference equations for two cohorts: Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV (MIMIC-IV), a cohort of patients from a single academic medical centre in Boston, MA, USA, and electronic Intensive Care Unit Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD), a cohort of patients from 208 hospitals in the USA. Patients who had lung-protective ventilation, hypoxaemia, and height in the range 150-210 cm were included. The data were collected from publicly available, deidentified datasets. We then studied the association between normalised V
findings9152 patients were included from MIMIC-IV (3064 [33·5%] female and 6088 [66·5%] male; 645 [7·0%] Black, 5885 [64·3%] White, and 2622 [28·6%] other race; mean age 63 years [SD 16]) and 12 420 patients were included from eICU-CRD (4262 [34·3%] female and 8158 [65·7%] male; 1023 [8·2%] Black, 10 093 [81·3%] White, and 1304 [10·5%] other race; mean age 62 years [SD 16]). Patients who were younger, male, and White had greater PFVCs than patients who were older, female, and non-White with the same PBW. A 1 SD increase in PBW:PFVC ratio was associated with 1·43-fold (95% CI 1·17-1·76) higher odds of death in MIMIC-IV and similar results were observed in the eICU-CRD cohort.
interpretationAdjusting V
fundingNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
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.