GuidelineBritish journal of anaesthesia2026
Risk assessment and prevention of postoperative and postprocedural respiratory failure: recommendations from an international expert panel.
Guideline in British journal of anaesthesia, 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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Respiratory failure after surgery and other major invasive procedures, defined as the unanticipated need for invasive or noninvasive ventilation, is a life-threatening complication affecting ∼10 million patients annually. At present, there are no guidelines for risk assessment and prevention of postprocedural respiratory failure. We developed expert-informed practice recommendations for the prediction and prevention of postoperative and postprocedural respiratory failure. These recommendations focused on modifiable pre- and post-procedural risk factors and implementation feasibility, using a structured multidisciplinary expert panel process. An international expert panel reviewed current literature, supplemented evidence gaps with expert opinion, and drafted preliminary action statements. Iterative voting rounds were used to refine expert panel statements, which were classified as recommendations with broad applicability and low likelihood of delaying care, or suggestions that can be applied selectively. The study panel included 25 experts from four continents and multiple medical disciplines. An initial set of 54 preliminary statements was refined into 13 recommendations and 15 suggestions. Recommendations included using screening tools systematically, promoting tobacco cessation, reconsidering procedure timing in patients with symptomatic respiratory tract infections, mobilising patients early and maximising upright positioning, maintaining good oral hygiene, using noninvasive respiratory support to minimise need for invasive ventilation, and minimising deep sedation while promoting early tracheal extubation. These recommendations reflect expert interpretation of a broad and heterogeneous body of evidence and provide practical strategies to predict and prevent postprocedural respiratory failure, offering a framework for future study of a risk-targeted care bundle.
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.