ArticleCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2026
Intraoperative ventilation settings in Germany: an observational multicentre cross-sectional study.
Article in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 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
purposeIntraoperative lung protective ventilation and, in inhalational anesthesia, minimal fresh gas flow (FGF) are recommended. It remains unclear how these recommendations are transferred to clinical routine. We aimed to assess corresponding anesthesia practices in Germany and raise awareness of optimal ventilation settings.
methodsWe performed a pragmatic prospective observational national cross-sectional assessment of intraoperative ventilation settings in Germany, followed by an educational intervention and follow-up assessment. The intervention consisted of a pocket card designed in a Delphi-process. The patient-centred primary endpoint was tidal volume (V
resultsOver 240 of 1,148 anesthesiology departments participated (21%). We collected data from 2,198 operating rooms in the first (preintervention) and 2,106 in the second (postintervention) assessment (96% response rate). The mean (standard deviation) V
conclusionsThis large-scale clinical study of intraoperative ventilation settings in Germany found that most anesthesiologists already followed current recommendations. Therefore, for the entire cohort, no major improvements were observed. The educational intervention might improve ventilation settings in anesthesiology departments whose baseline practice deviates strongly from current recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42842200What 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.