ReviewFrontiers in surgery2026
Higher vs. lower positive end-expiratory pressure during one-lung ventilation for thoracic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Higher fixed positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) during one-lung ventilation (OLV) may improve intraoperative oxygenation but could compromise haemodynamic stability. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of higher vs. lower fixed PEEP strategies on intraoperative hypotension and postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in patients undergoing thoracic surgery. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from inception to 7 March 2026, supplemented by trial registries. Parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing higher vs. lower fixed PEEP during OLV were eligible. Co-primary outcomes were intraoperative hypotension and PPCs. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) were estimated using random-effects models with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261329237). Results: Eight RCTs (2,747 patients) were included. Higher PEEP was associated with a significantly increased risk of intraoperative hypotension (2 studies; Conclusions: Higher fixed PEEP during OLV significantly increases intraoperative hypotension risk without reducing PPCs. The haemodynamic cost of this strategy is not offset by measurable clinical benefit. Routine application of higher fixed PEEP during OLV should be approached with caution, and future research should evaluate individualised PEEP titration strategies. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420261329237, identifier CRD420261329237.
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.