Clinical Outcomes of Routine Awake Prone Positioning in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Chong, Woon H.; Saha, Biplab K.; Tan, Chee Kiat

doi:10.14712/23362936.2022.14

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs showed that the prone position could effectively improve oxygenation and reduce the intubation rate in patients with COVID-19 ( 19 ). However, this study has some limitations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of awake prone position vs. usual care on acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPrevious studies have shown that an awake prone position may be beneficial for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) in patients with COVID-19, but the results are not consistent, especially in terms of oxygenation outcomes and intubation rate. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effects of the awake prone position on AHRF in patients with COVID-19 with all randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsAn extensive search of online databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1 December 2019 to 30 October 2022, with no language restrictions was performed. This systematic review and meta-analysis are based on the PRISMA statement. We only included RCTs and used the Cochrane risk assessment tool for quality assessment.ResultsFourteen RCTs fulfilled the selection criteria, and 3,290 patients were included. A meta-analysis found that patients in the awake prone position group had more significant improvement in the SpO2/FiO2 ratio [mean difference (MD): 29.76; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.39–48.13; P = 0.001] compared with the usual care. The prone position also reduced the need for intubation [odd ratio (OR): 0.72; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.84; P < 0.0001; I2 = 0%]. There was no significant difference in mortality, hospital length of stay, incidence of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and adverse events between the two groups.ConclusionThe awake prone position was a promising intervention method, which is beneficial to improve the oxygenation of patients with ARDS or AHRF caused by COVID-19 and reduce the need for intubation. However, the awake prone position showed no obvious advantage in mortality, hospital length of stay, incidence of ICU admission, and adverse events.Systematic review registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), identifier: CRD42022367885.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of awake prone position vs. usual care on acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs showed that prone position could effectively improve oxygenation and reduce intubation rate in COVID-19 patients 17 . However, this study has some limitations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of prone position versus usual care on acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID‑19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Peng

Yang

Zhang

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Previous studies have shown that prone position may be beneficial for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) in COVID-19 patients, but the results are not consistent, especially in terms of oxygenation outcomes and intubation rate. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effects of prone position on AHRF in COVID-19 patients with all randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: An extensive search of online databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from December 1, 2019 to October 30, 2022, with no language restrictions. This systematic review and meta-analysis are based on the PRISMA statement and has been registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with the registered ID: CRD42022367885. We only included RCTs and used Cochrane risk assessment tool for quality assessment. Results: Twelve RCTs fulfilled the selection criteria and 3154 patients were included. Meta-analysis found that patients in prone position group had more significant improvement in the SpO2/FiO2 ratio (mean difference [MD]: 29.76; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.39 to 48.13; P=0.001) compared with usual care. Prone position also reduced the need for intubation (odd ratio [OR]: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.85; P＜0.0001; I2=0%). There was no significant difference in mortality, hospital length of stay, incidence of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and adverse events between the two groups. Conclusions: Prone position was a promising intervention method, which is beneficial to improve the oxygenation of patients with ARDS or AHRF caused by COVID-19 and can reduce the need for intubation. However, prone position had no significant difference in mortality, hospital length of stay, incidence of ICU admission and adverse events.

show abstract

Global landscape of COVID-19 research: a visualization analysis of randomized clinical trials

Zyoud

2024

Clin Exp Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The emergence of COVID-19 in 2019 has resulted in a significant global health crisis. Consequently, extensive research was published to understand and mitigate the disease. In particular, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been considered the benchmark for assessing the efficacy and safety of interventions. Hence, the present study strives to present a comprehensive overview of the global research landscape pertaining to RCTs and COVID-19. A bibliometric analysis was performed using the Scopus database. The search parameters included articles published from 2020 to 2022 using keywords specifically related to COVID-19 and RCTs. The data were analyzed using various bibliometric indicators. The volume of publications, contributions of countries and institutions, funding agencies, active journals, citation analysis, co-occurrence analysis, and future research direction analysis were specifically analyzed. A total of 223,480 research articles concerning COVID-19 were published, with 3,727 of them related to RCTs and COVID-19. The ten most productive countries collectively produced 75.8% of the documents, with the United States leading the way by contributing 31.77%, followed by the UK with 14.03% (n = 523), China with 12.96% (n = 483) and Canada with 7.16% (n = 267). Trials (n = 173, 4.64%), BMJ Open (n = 81, 2.17%), PLOS One (n = 73, 1.96%) and JAMA Network Open (n = 53, 1.42%) were the most active journals in publishing articles related to COVID-19 RCTs. The co-occurrence analysis identified four clusters of research areas: the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, mental health strategies to cope with the impact of the pandemic, the use of monoclonal antibodies to treat patients with COVID-19, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses of COVID-19 research. This paper offers a detailed examination of the global research environment pertaining to RCTs and their use in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The comprehensive body of research findings was found to have been generated by the collaborative efforts of multiple countries, institutions, and funding organizations. The predominant research areas encompassed COVID-19 vaccines, strategies for mental health, monoclonal antibodies, and systematic reviews. This information has the potential to aid researchers, policymakers, and funders in discerning areas of weakness and establishing areas of priority.

show abstract

Clinical Outcomes of Routine Awake Prone Positioning in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Cited by 5 publications

References 49 publications

Effects of awake prone position vs. usual care on acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Effects of awake prone position vs. usual care on acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Effects of prone position versus usual care on acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID‑19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Global landscape of COVID-19 research: a visualization analysis of randomized clinical trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About