↓ Skip to main content

Associations between positive end-expiratory pressure and outcome of patients without ARDS at onset of ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
Associations between positive end-expiratory pressure and outcome of patients without ARDS at onset of ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13613-016-0208-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ary Serpa Neto, Roberto Rabello Filho, Thomas Cherpanath, Rogier Determann, Dave A. Dongelmans, Frederique Paulus, Pieter Roel Tuinman, Paolo Pelosi, Marcelo Gama de Abreu, Marcus J. Schultz

Abstract

The aim of this investigation was to compare ventilation at different levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with regard to clinical important outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) at onset of ventilation. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a lower level of PEEP with a higher level of PEEP was performed. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Twenty-one RCTs (1393 patients) were eligible. PEEP ranged from 0 to 10 cmH2O and from 5 to 30 cmH2O in the lower PEEP and the higher PEEP arms of included RCTs, respectively. In-hospital mortality was not different between the two PEEP arms in seven RCTs (risk ratio [RR] 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-1.21; I (2) = 26%, low quality of evidence [QoE]), as was duration of mechanical ventilation in three RCTs (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.68; 95% CI -0.24 to 1.61; I (2) = 82%, very low QoE). PaO2/FiO2 was higher in the higher PEEP arms in five RCTs (SMD 0.72; 95% CI 0.10-1.35; I (2) = 86%, very low QoE). Development of ARDS and the occurrence of hypoxemia (2 RCTs) were lower in the higher PEEP arms in four RCTs and two RCTs, respectively (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.21-0.91; I (2) = 56%, low QoE; RR 0.42; 95%-CI 0.19-0.92; I (2) = 19%, low QoE). There was no association between the level of PEEP and any hemodynamic parameter (four RCTs). Ventilation with higher levels of PEEP in ICU patients without ARDS at onset of ventilation was not associated with lower in-hospital mortality or shorter duration of ventilation, but with a lower incidence of ARDS and hypoxemia, as well as higher PaO2/FiO2. These findings should be interpreted with caution, as heterogeneity was moderate to high, the QoE was low to very low, and the available studies prevented us from addressing the effects of moderate levels of PEEP.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 5 7%
Other 19 27%
Unknown 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 15 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 December 2020.
All research outputs
#3,909,724
of 22,912,409 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#449
of 1,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,917
of 311,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#4
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,912,409 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,049 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,565 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.