ArticleBMJ open2026
Umbrella review protocol of meta-analyses on intraoperative protective ventilation.
Article in BMJ open, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAlthough the principle of lung-protective ventilation is widely recognised for preventing postoperative pulmonary complications, the optimal intraoperative ventilation strategies remain uncertain. Accordingly, this umbrella review aims to summarise the existing evidence on intraoperative ventilation strategy, evaluate the certainty of evidence and provide reliable evidence to guide clinical practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science from database inception to October 2026 for meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials on intraoperative mechanical ventilation. The search will be updated before submission of the final review. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be carried out independently by two reviewers. Methodological quality will be appraised using AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2), while evidence certainty will be evaluated using a modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. To reconcile potential inconsistencies across meta-analyses, the Jadad decision algorithm will be applied to guide the selection of the best available evidence. Evidence maps will be generated to visually synthesise the results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review relies on already published meta-analyses, and thus no ethics approval is required. The final manuscript will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251102617.
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.