Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Background Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening condition caused by direct or indirect injury to the lungs. Despite improvements in clinical management (for example, lung protection strategies), mortality in this patient group is at approximately 40%. This is an update of a previous version of this review, last published in 2004. Objectives To evaluate the e ectiveness of pharmacological agents in adults with ARDS on mortality, mechanical ventilation, and fitness to return to work at 12 months. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL on 10 December 2018. We searched clinical trials registers and grey literature, and handsearched reference lists of included studies and related reviews. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological agents with control (placebo or standard therapy) to treat adults with established ARDS. We excluded trials of nitric oxide, inhaled prostacyclins, partial liquid ventilation, neuromuscular blocking agents, fluid and nutritional interventions and medical oxygen. We excluded studies published earlier than 2000, because of changes to lung protection strategies for people with ARDS since this date. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. Main results We included 48 RCTs with 6299 participants who had ARDS; two included only participants with mild ARDS (also called acute lung injury). Most studies included causes of ARDS that were both direct and indirect injuries. We noted di erences between studies, for example the time of administration or the size of dose, and because of unclear reporting we were uncertain whether all studies had used equivalent lung protection strategies.
Background Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening condition caused by direct or indirect injury to the lungs. Despite improvements in clinical management (for example, lung protection strategies), mortality in this patient group is at approximately 40%. This is an update of a previous version of this review, last published in 2004. Objectives To evaluate the e ectiveness of pharmacological agents in adults with ARDS on mortality, mechanical ventilation, and fitness to return to work at 12 months. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL on 10 December 2018. We searched clinical trials registers and grey literature, and handsearched reference lists of included studies and related reviews. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological agents with control (placebo or standard therapy) to treat adults with established ARDS. We excluded trials of nitric oxide, inhaled prostacyclins, partial liquid ventilation, neuromuscular blocking agents, fluid and nutritional interventions and medical oxygen. We excluded studies published earlier than 2000, because of changes to lung protection strategies for people with ARDS since this date. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. Main results We included 48 RCTs with 6299 participants who had ARDS; two included only participants with mild ARDS (also called acute lung injury). Most studies included causes of ARDS that were both direct and indirect injuries. We noted di erences between studies, for example the time of administration or the size of dose, and because of unclear reporting we were uncertain whether all studies had used equivalent lung protection strategies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.