ArticleAnnals of intensive care2026
Guidelines for the Initial Assessment of Respiratory Distress in the Emergency Department.
Article in Annals 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.
- Reassessment strategy to reduce chest imaging in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism and elevated D-dimer: an exploratory cohort study.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Observational
- The Impact of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Co‑Infection on the Pathogen Spectrum and Outcomes of Severe Community‑Acquired Pneumonia: Insights from Metagenomic Next‑Generation Sequencing.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The French Society of Emergency Medicine (SFMU) and the French Intensive Care Society (SRLF) present formalized expert recommendations from a multidisciplinary panel on the initial assessment of respiratory distress in adult patients presenting to the Emergency Department. Design: A group of 30 French experts from the SFMU and FICS was assembled. Any potential conflicts of interest were officially declared at the start of the guidelines development process, which was conducted independently of any industry funding. The authors followed the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology to assess the level of evidence from the literature. Methods: The aim of this expert panel was to define evidence-based recommendations for the initial assessment of respiratory distress in the emergency setting. Three key areas were defined: (1) assessment of severity in respiratory distress; (2) initial assessment and triage in respiratory distress; (3) diagnostic approach for respiratory distress. For each area, the goal of the recommendations was to address a set of questions formulated by the experts following the PICO model ("Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome"). Based on these questions, a comprehensive literature search was conducted for the last 20 years using predefined keywords according to PRISMA guidelines. The quality of the data was analyzed using the GRADE method. The recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology, and then voted on by all experts using the GRADE Grid method. Results: The expert consensus process, based on the GRADE methodology, resulted in 13 clinical questions yielding 20 recommendations. For three of these questions, however, no recommendation could be issued due to insufficient evidence. After two rounds of voting and several amendments, a strong consensus was reached on the recommendations. Among these, two were supported by high-quality evidence and resulted in a strong recommendation (GRADE 1); six were based on moderate-quality evidence and led to a conditional recommendation (GRADE 2); and twelve were based on expert opinion, reflecting a low level of evidence. Finally, for 3 questions, no recommendation could be formulated. Conclusion: A strong consensus was reached among the experts on 20 of the recommendations. This work provides updated recommendations for the initial assessment of respiratory distress in adult patients presenting to the Emergency Department.
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.