Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 301

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of prone positioning during mechanical ventilation on mortality among patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Sud, Sachin, Friedrich, Jan O., Adhikari, Neill K. J., Taccone, Paolo, Mancebo, Jordi, Polli, Federico, Latini, Roberto, Pesenti, Antonio, Curley, Martha A.Q., Fernandez, Rafael, Chan, Ming-Cheng, Beuret, Pascal, Voggenreiter, Gregor, Sud, Maneesh, Tognoni, Gianni, Gattinoni, Luciano, Guérin, Claude·2014·Canadian Medical Association Journal

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation in the prone position is used to improve oxygenation and to mitigate the harmful effects of mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We sought to determine the effect of prone positioning on mortality among patients with ARDS receiving protective lung ventilation. METHODS: We searched electronic databases and conference proceedings to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through August 2013. We included RCTs that compared prone and supine positioning during mechanical ventilation in patients with ARDS. We assessed risk of bias and obtained data on all-cause mortality (determined at hospital discharge or, if unavailable, after longest follow-up period). We used random-effects models for the pooled analyses. RESULTS: We identified 11 RCTs (n=2341) that met our inclusion criteria. In the 6 trials (n=1016) that used a protective ventilation strategy with reduced tidal volumes, prone positioning significantly reduced mortality (risk ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.59-0.95; I2=29%) compared with supine positioning. The mortality benefit remained in several sensitivity analyses. The overall quality of evidence was high. The risk of bias was low in all of the trials except one, which was small. Statistical heterogeneity was low (I2<50%) for most of the clinical and physiologic outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Our analysis of high-quality evidence showed that use of the prone position during mechanical ventilation improved survival among patients with ARDS who received protective lung ventilation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1503/cmaj.140081

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 53 references

Cited by

See all 301

Metadata

Authors
Sud, S., Friedrich, J. O., Adhikari, N. K. J., Taccone, P., Mancebo, J., Polli, F., Latini, R., Pesenti, A., Curley, M. A. Q., Fernandez, R., Chan, M.-C., Beuret, P., Voggenreiter, G., Sud, M., Tognoni, G., Gattinoni, L., & Guérin, C.
Venue
Canadian Medical Association Journal
Published
2014-05-26
Volume
186
Issue
10
Pages
E381-E390
ISSN
  • 0820-3946 (ISSN-L)
  • 1488-2329
OpenAlex
W2128951939
Cited by
301
References
53
FWCI
3.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effect of prone positioning during mechanical ventilation on mortality among patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1503/cmaj.140081
The paper
Sud, S., Friedrich, J. O., Adhikari, N. K. J., Taccone, P., Mancebo, J., Polli, F., Latini, R., Pesenti, A., Curley, M. A. Q., Fernandez, R., Chan, M.-C., Beuret, P., Voggenreiter, G., Sud, M., Tognoni, G., Gattinoni, L., & Guérin, C. (2014). Effect of prone positioning during mechanical ventilation on mortality among patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Canadian Medical Association Journal. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.140081

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.