ReviewIntensive care medicine2026
Lung- and diaphragm-protective mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome.
Review in Intensive care medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lung-protective ventilation is the current standard for mechanical ventilation of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Traditionally, this approach has focused on the controlled phase of mechanical ventilation, but emerging data suggest that how patients are managed during assisted ventilation may also impact clinical outcomes. Experimental and observational clinical data indicate that excessive respiratory effort may further damage already injured lungs and may also lead to diaphragm myotrauma. Conversely, insufficient effort and prolonged passive ventilation are associated with diaphragm atrophy and dysfunction. Recent non-invasive techniques to monitor respiratory drive and effort at the bedside have facilitated the development of a new strategy to protect both the lungs and the diaphragm. The lung- and diaphragm-protective (LDP) ventilation framework highlights the need to better integrate ventilation and sedation strategies to facilitate timely and safe spontaneous breathing. This new paradigm has driven the development of emerging supportive and therapeutic modalities, such as diaphragm neurostimulation and partial neuromuscular blockade. Clinical trials are needed to evaluate the impact of LDP strategies on patient-centered outcomes, using designs that account for the possibility of heterogeneity of treatment effect in the ARDS population. In this review, we summarize the physiological background for the LDP framework, as well as the current clinical evidence evaluating this strategy.
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.