ArticleCanadian respiratory journal2026
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Mechanical Ventilation vs. High-Frequency Percussive Ventilation.
Article in Canadian respiratory journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Mechanical Ventilation vs. High-Frequency Percussive Ventilation.Canadian respiratory journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStudies that investigate the use of high-frequency percussive ventilation (HFPV) are scarce and outdated. HFPV is being used in some facilities primarily as a salvage modality on patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) when a conventional mechanical ventilator has failed to improve outcomes. There still are arguments whether HFPV is an effective ventilation strategy for adult patients with ARDS.
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to analyze and compare pulmonary gas exchange, as measured by arterial blood gas (ABG) values, between patients with ARDS who were transitioned from conventional mechanical ventilation to HFPV and those who remained on conventional mechanical ventilation.
methodsThis was a retrospective study between 2016 and 2022. Data was extracted and analyzed from electronic medical records (EMRs) of ARDS patients. ABG results were analyzed from 12 to 2 h before, and 30 min, 2, 12, and 24 h after the initiation of conventional and HFPV. Continuous mandatory ventilation (CMV) settings were compared over 12 and 2 h before the initiation of HFPV and 2, 12, and 24 h after. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsA total of N = 351 cases were evaluated for this study (n1 = 194 in the CMV group and n2 = 157 in the HFPV group). Patients in the HFPV group had a lower mean baseline pH (7.25 vs. 7.34, p = <0.001) and higher PaCO
conclusionsResults show that HFPV can effectively be used for adult ARDS as a salvage modality when a patient's ABG has become refractory to conventional mechanical ventilation.
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.