ArticleAnnals of the American Thoracic Society2026
Waveform data capture substantial variation in tidal volume and other respiratory parameters.
Article in Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationalePatients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) require accurate assessments of ventilator parameters. Documentation of these parameters in standard practice may fail to capture meaningful variation due to intermittent missingness.
objectivesTo assess variation in continuously measured ventilator parameters and agreement with measurements documented as part of routine care in the electronic health record (EHR).
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of patients receiving IMV in a medical intensive care unit from November 2024 through March 2025. We compared the observed tidal volume, minute ventilation, peak inspiratory pressure, and positive end-expiratory pressure, measured continuously from device waveforms with intermittent EHR documentation. We calculated descriptive statistics and measures of agreement between these sources.
resultsFor 59 encounters, the median age was 65 years (IQR, 59-72 years), 33 (56%) patients were male, and 17 (29%) were Black. Thirty-four (58%) patients died or were discharged to hospice. Among 358 patient-days of data, continuous measurements captured significantly more variation than EHR-documented measurements across all parameters. The largest errors were in observed tidal volume (mean absolute error, 69 mL [95% CI, 62-77 mL]; correlation coefficient 0.540). Agreement in tidal volume was worse among patients receiving mandatory modes of ventilation (correlation coefficient 0.454).
conclusionsIntermittent measurement of ventilator parameters fails to capture large variability observed in continuous, waveform-derived measurements. Poor agreement in parameters like tidal volume, even in mandatory modes of ventilation, highlights the potential for ventilator waveform data to improve care and advance research for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and others receiving IMV.
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.