ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Prone Positioning in a North American Cohort of Hypoxemic Patients on Mechanical Ventilation.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Use of prone positioning increased among mechanically ventilated patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is unknown whether implementation of this life-saving intervention was sustained. Thus, we aimed to evaluate peri-pandemic trends in proning use. Design: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of proning use among mechanically ventilated adults, with proning rates compared across pre-pandemic (1/2018-2/2020), pandemic (3/2020-2/2022), and post-pandemic (3/2022-12/2024) periods. Setting: 37 North American hospitals. Patients: Mechanically ventilated patients with persistent moderate-to-severe hypoxemia (PaO Intervention: Proning within 12 hours of meeting study hypoxemia criteria. Measurements and Main Results: Among 5,760 proning-eligible patients, 1,737 (30.2%) received proning: 8.0% pre-pandemic, 44.6% pandemic, and 19.9% post-pandemic. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for proning during pandemic versus pre-pandemic periods was 8.25 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 6.35-10.70) and pandemic versus post-pandemic, 2.76 (95% CI: 1.83-4.17). Proning varied widely by hospital and was quantified with the median odds ratio (median change in odds of proning an identical patient admitted at a lower versus higher proning hospital) of 2.54 (95% Credible Interval (CrI): 1.75-4.58) pre-pandemic, 2.33 (95% CrI: 1.92-3.04) pandemic, and 2.58 (95% CrI: 1.99-3.73) post-pandemic. Pandemic-period patients with SARS-CoV2 were proned more than those without (OR: 4.55, [95% CI: 3.85-5.56]), but pandemic-period patients without SARS-CoV2 were still proned more than pre-pandemic (OR: 3.87, [95% CI: 2.92-5.13]) or post-pandemic patients (OR: 1.37, [95% CI: 1.03-1.83]). Conclusions: In a North American cohort of proning-eligible patients, proning increased during the pandemic and then declined. Interventions that improve implementation of this life-saving treatment are urgently needed.
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.