SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Efficacy and safety of lung-protective ventilation in neurosurgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Methods: We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and WANFANG databases (2000-2025) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing lung-protective ventilation (LPV) with conventional ventilation in craniotomy patients. The primary outcome was the incidence of overall postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). The secondary outcomes included intracranial pressure (ICP), pulmonary infection, atelectasis, oxygenation index, and lung compliance. All analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.2. Results: Seven RCTs involving 523 patients were included in the study. Compared to conventional ventilation, LPV significantly reduced the risk of overall PPCs (OR 0.30, 95% CI: 0.18-0.48, Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrates that LPV effectively reduces PPCs (moderate-quality evidence) and does not elevate ICP (low- to moderate-quality evidence). Although conclusions regarding ICP are based on surrogate measures, further large-scale RCTs with standardized measures of invasive ICP and consistent definitions of PPCs and LPV are required to validate our findings.
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.