ArticleHeliyon2024
Effects of driving pressure-guided ventilation on postoperative pulmonary complications in patients with COVID-19 undergoing abdominal surgery: A post-hoc propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Individualized Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Guided by Driving Pressure on Postoperative Atelectasis Assessed by Lung Ultrasound in Laparoscopic Surgery Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2026Trial
- Development and validation of a perioperative risk prediction model for pressure ulcers in neurosurgical procedures: a machine learning approach with protocol compliance metrics.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Driving pressure: A useful tool for reducing postoperative pulmonary complications.World journal of critical care medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Application of individualized positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) based on minimum driving pressure facilitates to prevent from postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Whether lung protective ventilation strategy can reduce the risk of PPCs in COVID-19 patients remains unclear. In this study, we compared the effects of driving pressure-guided ventilation with conventional mechanical ventilation on PPCs in patients with COVID-19. Methods: Patients infected COVID-19 within 30-day before surgery were retrospectively enrolled consecutively. Patients were divided into two group: driving pressure-guided lung protective ventilation strategy group (LPVS group) and conventional mechanical ventilation group (Control group). Propensity score matching for variables selected was used by logistic regression with the nearest-neighbor method. The outcomes were the incidence of PPCs and hypoxemia in post-anesthesia care unit. Results: There was no significant difference in the baseline data between both groups ( Conclusion: Individualized PEEP ventilation strategy guided by minimum driving pressure could improve oxygenation and reduce the incidence of PPCs in surgical patients with COVID-19.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.