Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42644874›Full record

ReviewAdvances in respiratory medicine2026

Awake Prone Positioning in Non-Intubated Non-COVID-19 ARDS: A Comprehensive Review.

Mairi Ziaka, Aristomenis Exadaktylos

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in respiratory medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mairi ZiakaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Inselspital, University Hospital, University of Bern, 3010 Bern, Switzerland.
Aristomenis ExadaktylosAcademic Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Cyprus, 1678 Nicosia, Cyprus.ORCID 0009-0002-7353-3759

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite advances in the understanding of the pathophysiology of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), treatment options remain limited and are mainly supportive, while mortality remains high. Prone positioning (PP) has been shown to improve oxygenation and lung mechanics in ARDS by reducing the imbalance in ventilation distribution between ventral and dorsal lung regions, altering pulmonary blood flow distribution, modifying the density distribution of edematous lung tissue, and limiting areas with low ventilation-perfusion ratios. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the use of PP, referred to as awake prone positioning (APP), was extended to non-intubated patients with severe hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, several concerns remain, including worsening oxygenation following the transition from prone to supine position, the potential development of patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI), and delays in endotracheal intubation and initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation. Evidence regarding the use of APP in non-COVID-19 ARDS is scarce and consists mainly of small case series and a limited number of prospective studies with small and heterogeneous populations. Therefore, in the present work, we aim to summarize the existing evidence on APP in non-COVID-19 ARDS and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), describe the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, and highlight areas for future research.

Indexed as

Patient PositioningRespiratory Distress SyndromeRespiratory InsufficiencyCOVID-19HumansPandemicsProne PositionRespiration, ArtificialSARS-CoV-2Wakefulnessacute hypoxemic respiratory failureARDSawake prone positioningintubationmechanical ventilationpatient self-inflicted lung injury

Identifiers

PMID42644874
PMCPMC13510002

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.