Trial reportEuropean journal of medical research2024
Effects of innovative modular prone positioning tools in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19 during awake prone position: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in European journal of medical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia: Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment.Microorganisms · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOur aim is to investigate the effects of a innovative modular prone positioning tools on patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by COVID-19 during awake prone positioning (AW-PP).
methodsThis prospective randomized controlled study initially enrolled 168 patients with COVID-19 due to ARDS. However, 92 were subsequently disqualified, leaving 76 patients who were randomly assigned to either the observation group (n = 38) or the control group (n = 38). The observation group utilized innovative modular prone positioning tools for non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS), while the control group used soft pillows for the same treatment. Data were collected on comfort levels, adverse events, and efficacy indicators. Additionally, the comfort, incidence of adverse events, and treatment efficacy in both groups were evaluated.
resultsThe observation group had shorter the daily duration spent on executing the AW-PP (2.74 ± 0.86 min vs. 4.64 ± 1.02 min, P < 0.001), longer the daily total AW-PP (8.52 ± 1.01 h vs. 6.03 ± 0.66 h, P < 0.001), longer the daily duration until the first position adjustment (59.89 ± 12.73 min vs. 36.57 ± 8.69 min, P < 0.001), and lower the daily frequency of position adjustments during the AW-PP (11.03 ± 2.67 vs. 17.95 ± 2.58, P < 0.001) in comparison with the control group. No significant differences were observed in intubation rates, mortality, the daily number of hours under HFNO and NIV, escalated to NIV from HFNO, and hospital length of stay between the groups (P > 0.05). However, the observation group experienced significantly fewer adverse events, including kinking NIRS circuit, pain, shortness of breath, dizziness, and pressure ulcers (P < 0.05).
conclusionInnovative modular prone positioning tools improved efficiency, comfort, and reduced adverse events during AW-PP but did not affect intubation rates or mortality.
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.