SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2026
Awake prone positioning reduces mortality, intubation, and hospital stay in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 6,164 patients.
Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality and often requires advanced respiratory support. Awake prone positioning (APP) has emerged as a simple, low-cost intervention to improve oxygenation in non-intubated patients; however, its clinical effectiveness and safety remain uncertain.
aimThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of awake prone positioning in non-intubated adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from database inception to February 2026. Randomized controlled trials and observational comparative studies evaluating APP versus usual care were included. Primary outcomes were mortality, intubation, and length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included ICU stay, invasive mechanical ventilation, ICU admission, escalation of respiratory support, time to invasive ventilation, and adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed using ROB 2 for randomized trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.
resultsTwenty-four studies involving 6,164 patients were included. APP significantly reduced mortality (OR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.42-0.86, p = 0.005), intubation (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.60-0.79, p < 0.00001), length of hospital stay (MD = - 0.70 days, 95% CI - 1.07 to - 0.32, p = 0.0003), ICU stay (MD = - 2.84 days, 95% CI - 5.44 to - 0.24, p = 0.03), and invasive mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.31-0.58, p < 0.00001). No significant differences were observed in ICU admission, escalation of respiratory support, or adverse events.
conclusionAwake prone positioning was associated with improved clinical outcomes, including reduced mortality, intubation, and hospital stay, without an apparent increase in adverse events. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously given the observed heterogeneity and potential publication bias. Further high-quality randomized trials are needed to confirm these results.
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.