SynthesisThe clinical respiratory journal2026
Efficacy of Prone Positioning in Non-ARDS Patients With Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in The clinical respiratory journal, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProne positioning (PP) is established for the management of hypoxemic respiratory failure (HRF) due to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, its effectiveness in patients with HRF unrelated to ARDS remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of PP in patients with non-ARDS HRF.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE (up to February 2025) for observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating PP in patients with HRF unrelated to ARDS. We included studies that enrolled either intubated or non-intubated patients. On the other hand, we excluded studies that combined PP with other positions and those that did not compare pre-and-post prone or did not have control groups. Two reviewers working independently screened the included studies and extracted the relevant data. Meta-analyses using a random-effects model were performed using the Review Manager software.
resultsTwenty-one studies comprising 3040 patients with HRF unrelated to ARDS were included. Thirteen were observational studies, one was a non-randomized clinical trial, and seven were RCTS. In non-intubated patients, PP improved PaO2/FiO2 compared with baseline (mean difference [MD]: -51.36 mmHg; 95% CI: -70.39 to -32.32; p < 0.00001), decreased the need for intubation compared with control/standard care (risk ratio [RR]: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.60-0.91; p = 0.004), and demonstrated a trend to improve mortality (RR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.61-1.01; p = 0.07). In intubated non-ARDS HRF patients, the PaO
conclusionIn non-intubated patients with HRF unrelated to ARDS, PP improved oxygenation and decreased the need for invasive ventilation without increasing mortality risk. Therefore, PP is likely an effective therapy for non-intubated patients with non-ARDS HRF. Furthermore, evidence suggests that PP can improve oxygenation in intubated patients with HRF unrelated to 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.