ArticleBiomedical reports2026
Association between tidal volume and mortality in patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Biomedical reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The optimal tidal volume for mechanically ventilated patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains unclear. The present systematic review and meta-analysis compared the effects of low compared with high tidal volume (Vt) ventilation in non-ARDS patients. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing low and high Vt in adults without ARDS were included. The primary outcome was short-term mortality (28- or 30-day mortality in the ICU or hospital). Secondary outcomes were days of ventilation, pulmonary complications and length of hospital stay. Summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. In total, 18 studies were included (1,530 low Vt vs. 1,512 high Vt patients). No significant difference in short term mortality was observed between low and high Vt ventilation (n=12; OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.71-1.09; P=0.24). However, subgroup analysis by maximum airway pressure (Pmax) showed that low Vt with low Pmax significantly reduced short-term mortality compared with low Vt with Pmax (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.75; P=0.0007). Low Vt also decreased days of ventilation [mean difference (MD), -1.00; 95% CI, -1.76--0.24; P=0.01], pulmonary complications (n=11 studies; OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.30-0.54; P<0.00001) and hospital stay (n=11 studies; MD, -1.49; 95% CI, -2.54--0.44; P=0.006). Trial sequential analysis indicated conclusive evidence, suggesting further trials are unlikely to change the conclusion. In conclusion, low Vt combined with low Pmax, but not low Vt alone, improved short-term mortality in non-ARDS patients with respiratory failure. Clinically, this suggests that limiting both tidal volume and airway pressure may offer a protective ventilation strategy for non-ARDS patients, potentially guiding bedside titration of ventilatory settings to reduce mortality. The present study was registered in PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42019119453).
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.