Effect of prone positioning during mechanical ventilation on mortality among patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation in the prone position is used to improve oxygenation and to mitigate the harmful effects of mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We sought to determine the effect of prone positioning on mortality among patients with ARDS receiving protective lung ventilation. METHODS: We searched electronic databases and conference proceedings to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through August 2013. We included RCTs that compared prone and supine positioning during mechanical ventilation in patients with ARDS. We assessed risk of bias and obtained data on all-cause mortality (determined at hospital discharge or, if unavailable, after longest follow-up period). We used random-effects models for the pooled analyses. RESULTS: We identified 11 RCTs (n=2341) that met our inclusion criteria. In the 6 trials (n=1016) that used a protective ventilation strategy with reduced tidal volumes, prone positioning significantly reduced mortality (risk ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.59-0.95; I2=29%) compared with supine positioning. The mortality benefit remained in several sensitivity analyses. The overall quality of evidence was high. The risk of bias was low in all of the trials except one, which was small. Statistical heterogeneity was low (I2<50%) for most of the clinical and physiologic outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Our analysis of high-quality evidence showed that use of the prone position during mechanical ventilation improved survival among patients with ARDS who received protective lung ventilation.
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 | 0.014 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".