ArticleJournal of intensive care2026
Inhaled nitric oxide for acute respiratory distress syndrome in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of intensive care, 2026. 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.
- EIT-assessed ventilation-perfusion responses to prone positioning and inhaled nitric oxide in mechanically ventilated COVID-19-related ARDS: a prospective sequential study.Journal of intensive care · 2026Article
- Optimizing aerosol therapy in mechanically ventilated acute respiratory distress syndrome: a delivery-fidelity framework.Frontiers in medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is used as a rescue therapy in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), its impact on patient-centered outcomes remains uncertain. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to test the hypothesis that the addition of iNO to standard care improves survival in adult patients with ARDS.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP for RCTs evaluating iNO in adult patients with ARDS through October 28, 2025. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up. Secondary outcomes included acute kidney injury (AKI), receipt of renal replacement therapy (RRT), duration of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit stay, length of hospital stay, receipt of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), mean pulmonary artery pressure, partial pressure of arterial oxygen/fraction of inspiratory oxygen (PaO
resultsWe included 11 RCTs comprising 1302 patients. Only one study was of low risk of bias. iNO therapy may result in no difference in mortality at the longest follow-up (relative risk [RR], 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.23; I
conclusionsAlthough iNO may improve oxygenation slightly, it may not confer survival or other patient-centered benefits and may increase the need for RRT. High-quality randomized evidence is needed to guide the optimal patient selection for this therapeutic option.
trial registrationPROSPERO (registration number: CRD42024573383).
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.