ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2026
Discrepancies between estimated and geometrically derived mechanical power in invasively ventilated patients - insights from a randomized clinical trial.
Article in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04827927 (The Effect of Closed-Loop Versus Conventional Ventilation on Mechanical Power - a Multicenter Crossover Randomized Clinical Trial), which is not on this 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.
The Effect of Closed-Loop Versus Conventional Ventilation on Mechanical Power - a Multicenter Crossover Randomized Clinical Trial
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMechanical power (MP) quantifies the energy transferred from the ventilator to the respiratory system and is increasingly linked to outcomes in invasively ventilated critically ill patients. Limiting MP may support lung-protective ventilation by integrating key determinants of ventilator-induced lung injury. While geometric MP, derived from pressure-volume loops, is considered the reference standard, it is not readily available at the bedside. Therefore, simplified equations are commonly used, although their agreement remains uncertain. This study evaluates the agreement of previously proposed equations to estimate inspiratory MP compared with a geometric reference.
results494 paired values of geometric and estimated MP were collected, in 38 passively ventilated patients during closed-loop ventilation and during conventional ventilation. The median geometric MP was 17.0 [12.3-21.5] J/min. Correlation between geometric and estimated MP ranged from strong to very strong. Agreement between geometric and estimated MP was good, though bias and limits of agreement varied across the different equations. ROC analysis showed excellent discrimination for most equations across all tested cutoffs, with discrimination gradually declining at higher MP levels.
conclusionIn passively ventilated critically ill patients, estimated MP showed strong to very strong correlations with the geometric reference. ROC analysis confirmed excellent discrimination, but Bland-Altman analysis revealed considerable variability, suggesting potential limitations in using these equations interchangeably in clinical or research settings. STUDY REGISTRATION: INTELLiPOWER was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (study identifier NCT04827927).
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.