ArticleJournal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures)2025
Use of prone position in spontaneous breathing in patients with COVID-19.
Article in Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate if awake prone position (PP) reduces the rate of endotracheal intubation and mortality in patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of 726 patients who were admitted to the ICU with acute hypoxic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19. The protocol of the institution recommended the use of awake PP in patients with nasal catheter with an oxygen flow ≥ 5 L/min and SpO Results: There was a higher mortality rate in the supine position group (27.1%) than in the awake PP group (13.9%). There was no significant difference in the time on MV or number of patients on MV (p>0.05). The variables with p < 0.05 in the bivariate analysis were entered into the Cox regression model. The model was adjusted for awake PP, sex, age, SAPS-3 score, onset of symptoms, the degree of pulmonary involvement, chronic arterial disease, and noninvasive ventilation. The only variable associated with lower mortality over time was awake PP (hazard ratio: 0.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.33-0.92). Conclusion: Awake prone position has been shown to be a safe and effective therapy that reduced mortality but not the risk of intubation in 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.