Higher PEEP in Patients With Acute Lung Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies of ventilation strategies that included higher PEEP in patients with acute lung injury (ALI) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have yielded conflicting results. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether higher PEEP during volume-limited and pressure-limited ventilation is associated with 28-day mortality or barotrauma rates in patients with ALI/ARDS. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the bibliographies of retrieved papers to identify randomized controlled trials that compared higher and lower PEEP in adult patients with ALI/ARDS who were already receiving volume-limited or pressure-limited ventilation. Two of us independently abstracted study-level data, including study design, patient characteristics, study methods, intervention, and main results. We pooled the study-level data with a random-effects model, unless heterogeneity was low (I(2) < 50%), in which case we used a fixed-effects model. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. RESULTS: Four randomized trials (2,360 participants) were evaluated. Higher PEEP had a nonsignificant trend toward lower 28-day mortality (pooled relative risk 0.90, 95% CI 0.79-1.02). There was no difference in barotrauma between the 2 groups (pooled relative risk 1.17, 95% CI 0.90-1.52). Two studies reported an adjusted hospital death rate, and the pooled results of sensitivity analysis with those adjusted rates were identical to those of the unadjusted analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In 4 recent studies that used volume-limited or pressure-limited ventilation in ALI/ARDS patients, higher PEEP was not associated with significantly different short-term mortality or barotrauma. This study does not support the routine use of higher PEEP in patients with ALI/ARDS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".