Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41868067›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine2026

What if the Intensive Care Unit Abandoned the Physiology Myth-The Case of "Physiological PEEP".

Ganesh K Manjunatha, Marcus J Schultz, Prashant Nasa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ganesh K ManjunathaDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Fortis Hospitals, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-2374-2372
Marcus J SchultzDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Rescue- and Pain Medicine, HOCH Health Ostschweiz, Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland; Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU), Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand; Department of Anaesthesia, General Intensive Care and Pain Management, Division of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anaesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, Medical University Wien, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3969-7792
Prashant NasaDepartment of Intensive Care, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, New Cross Hospital, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1948-4060

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is something deeply appealing about the concept of "physiological positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP)" because it sounds scientific, natural, and evidence-based. The rationale for physiological PEEP is glottic closure at the end of expiration, which helps in preventing alveolar collapse and optimizing gas exchange. However, the translation of physiological PEEP to a minimum preset PEEP in mechanically ventilated patients is standard practice, though it lacks evidence. Moreover, PEEP is not innocuous in positive-pressure ventilation and can cause harm by altering respiratory and cardiovascular mechanics. We present a viewpoint challenging the dogma of the application of "physiological PEEP" during invasive mechanical ventilation. The PEEP, like any other ventilation setting, should be based on pathology and lung mechanics and needs to be individualized. How to cite this article: Manjunatha GK, Schultz MJ, Nasa P. What if the Intensive Care Unit Abandoned the Physiology Myth-The Case of "Physiological PEEP". Indian J Crit Care Med 2026;30(2):95-98.

Indexed as

Acute respiratory distress syndromeMechanical ventilationPhysiological positive end-expiratory pressureRespiratory failureVentilator-induced lung injury

Identifiers

PMID41868067
PMCPMC12999770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.