ArticleRespiratory research2024
Differences of respiratory mechanics in mechanical ventilation of acute respiratory distress syndrome between patients with COVID-19 and Influenza A.
Article in Respiratory research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intranasal Delivery of an RSV A2-Derived Pre-F VLP Vaccine Induces Robust Mucosal and Systemic Immunity Against RSV B Strain Without Enhanced Disease.Immune network · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Risk of Death in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With COVID-19 and Influenza: A Population-Based Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhether COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) should be approached differently in terms of mechanical ventilation therapy compared to other virus-induced ARDS is debatable. Therefore, we aimed to ascertain whether the respiratory mechanical characteristics of COVID-19-induced ARDS differ from those of influenza A induced ARDS, in order to establish a rationale for mechanical ventilation therapy in COVID-19-induced ARDS.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study comparing patients with COVID-19-induced ARDS and influenza A induced ARDS. We included intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19 or Influenza A aged ≥ 19, who were diagnosed with ARDS according to the Berlin definition between January 2015 and July 2021. Ventilation parameters for respiratory mechanics were collected at specific times on days one, three, and seven after intubation.
resultsThe median age of the 87 participants was 71.0 (62.0-78.0) years old, and 63.2% were male. The ratio of partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood to the fractional of inspiratory oxygen concentration in COVID-19-induced ARDS was lower than that in influenza A induced ARDS during the initial stages of mechanical ventilation (influenza A induced ARDS 216.1 vs. COVID-19-induced ARDS 167.9, p = 0.009, day 1). The positive end expiratory pressure remained consistently higher in the COVID-19 group throughout the follow-up period (7.0 vs. 10.0, p < 0.001, day 1). COVID-19 and influenza A initially showed different directions for peak inspiratory pressure and dynamic compliance; however, after day 3, both groups exhibited similar directions. Dynamic driving pressure exhibited opposite trends between the two groups during mechanical ventilation.
conclusionsRespiratory mechanics show clear differences between COVID-19-induced ARDS and influenza A induced ARDS. Based on these findings, we can consider future treatment strategies for COVID-19-induced ARDS.
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.