ArticleCureus2026
Implications of Lung Compliance Phenotypes in COVID-19-Induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly literature suggested a phenomenon where coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19)-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) presented with high respiratory system compliance (RC) in some patients. Thus, it posed a challenge to conventional ARDS ventilator management strategies. RESEARCH QUESTION: Are there different phenotypes of lung compliance among mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19-induced ARDS? Does the RC phenotype impact the clinical outcome? Study design and methods: This was a single-center historical cohort study that included patients who were mechanically ventilated for COVID-19-induced ARDS and who met the Berlin Criteria for ARDS. RC was calculated at intubation, for eight weeks, and at extubation. Data on demographic factors and comorbidities were also collected. Measurements: RC was calculated by tidal volume/pressure. Descriptive statistics, chi-squared test, Student's t-test, and multivariable logistic regression were used to analyze the data. Main results: Compliance groups were derived from the collected data. Most patients (73.6% to 89.4%) had severely reduced (≤40 ml/cmH₂O) static RC, and (10.7% to 26.4%) had RC ≥40 ml/cmH₂O. At week one and at extubation, there was a statistically significant difference in mortality between high versus moderate versus low RC groups: week one: (57.1% versus 66.7% versus 87.7%, respectively, p = 0.02); extubation: (83.3% versus 58.8% versus 87.2%, p = 0.01, respectively). Remdesivir administration, older age, and higher Charlson Comorbidity index scores were associated with increased mortality (4.2 OR 95% CI [1.61, 10.87]), (1.03 OR 95% CI [1.003, 1.07]), and (1.31 OR 95% CI [1.03, 1.67]), respectively. Declining PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) ratios were associated with lower RC.
interpretationCOVID-19 ARDS presents a range of RC and different phenotypes, which may require different ventilator strategies. Given the increased mortality at extubation in patients with low RC, it poses the possibility of a bedside prognostication tool. Older age, number of comorbidities, and Remdesivir use were associated with increased mortality. Lastly, declining P/F ratios were associated with lower RC.
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.