ReviewCritical care (London, England)2026
Measuring and managing pulmonary edema in ARDS: a narrative review.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite significant advancements in the understanding of pulmonary vascular permeability and the preclinical development of compounds targeting pulmonary vascular permeability, their translation into clinical therapies for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has remained unsuccessful. Among others, this translational gap can be attributed to limitations in measuring pulmonary vascular permeability in the clinical setting. This review aims to evaluate current and near-future modalities for quantifying pulmonary edema and their potential application in research settings. We first outline the definition of ARDS and the pathophysiology of pulmonary edema, focusing on pulmonary vascular mechanisms and therapeutic targets to reducing vascular leakage. Next, we examine techniques for assessing pulmonary edema, including gravimetry (the preclinical gold standard), transpulmonary thermodilution (the clinical gold standard), as well as newer modalities such as lung ultrasound and chest CT. Finally, we discuss how pulmonary edema measurements may serve as meaningful endpoints in early-phase clinical trials. The use of pulmonary edema as a primary endpoint in clinical trials may carry significant advantages, including more direct parameters for translation of pre-clinical studies on vascular leakage into clinical application, and possibly a higher success rate for transition to large phase III trials. Amidst the era of personalized medicine, the quantification of pulmonary edema holds promise in guiding clinical pharmacological trials for ARDS.
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.