Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42207935›Full record

SynthesisCritical care medicine2026

Technology-Enhanced Strategies to Optimize Positive End-Expiratory Pressure in Patients Receiving Invasive Mechanical Ventilation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Adam J Boulton, Adel Elfeky, Rachel Court, Amy Grove, Anna Wilson, Peter Auguste, Daniel Clayton, Daniel Gallacher, Ewan C Goligher, Catherine MacLeod Hall and 7 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in 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

17 authors.

Adam J BoultonWarwick Clinical Trials Units, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2115-1129
Adel ElfekyWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Rachel CourtWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Amy GroveWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Anna WilsonWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Peter AugusteWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Daniel ClaytonWarwick Clinical Trials Units, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Daniel GallacherWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Ewan C GoligherInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Catherine MacLeod HallWarwick Clinical Trials Units, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Daniel F McAuleyWellcome-Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Science, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom.
Gavin D PerkinsWarwick Clinical Trials Units, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Barnaby R ScholefieldInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Marion ThompsonPatient and Public Contributor, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Joyce YeungWarwick Clinical Trials Units, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Yen-Fu ChenWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Keith CouperWarwick Clinical Trials Units, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo undertake a systematic review evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of technology-enhanced positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) optimization strategies in adults and children receiving invasive mechanical ventilation on an ICU. DATA SOURCES: We searched key electronic databases (including MEDLINE and Embase) from inception to July 2024. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized studies examining clinical or cost-effectiveness of technology-enhanced PEEP optimization strategies compared with standard care or an alternative PEEP optimization strategy in adults and children. The primary outcome was duration of mechanical ventilation and secondary outcomes were clinical effectiveness (e.g., mortality) and efficacy (e.g., PEEP). DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias (Revised Cochrane tool) and performed Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation evidence certainty assessments. DATA SYNTHESIS: Our database and trial register search retrieved 8845 results, of which 34 studies (2951 patients) were included. Eight studies were at low risk of bias. Across studies, 7 technologies were evaluated, most commonly esophageal balloon measurement of transpulmonary pressure (10 studies), electrical impedance tomography (7 studies), pressure-volume curve analysis (6 studies), and fully automated closed-loop ventilation (5 studies). Meta-analysis used random-effects models. Duration of mechanical ventilation was reported in only three studies (172 patients, two technologies) and there was no effect compared with standard care (mean difference -0.06 d; 95% CI, -0.20 to 0.09; very low-certainty evidence).For 28-day mortality (10 studies; 1,719 patients; six technologies), technology-enhanced PEEP optimization reduced 28-day mortality (risk ratio 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.93; very low-certainty evidence). No significant differences were found for other clinical-effectiveness outcomes. We identified no evidence in children or on cost-effectiveness.

conclusionsTechnology-enhanced PEEP optimization strategies did not reduce duration of mechanical ventilation, but these technologies may reduce mortality. Evidence certainty was low or very low, highlighting the urgent need for adequately powered randomized trials. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42024555390).

Indexed as

Positive-Pressure RespirationRespiration, ArtificialCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansIntensive Care Unitscritical careindividualized medicinepositive end-expiratory pressurepositive-pressure respiration intensive carerespiratory distress syndrome

Identifiers

PMID42207935
PMCPMC13322154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.