Cited by 8Respiratory Support and MechanismsNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchAirway Management and Intubation Techniques

Positive-end expiratory pressure titration and transpulmonary pressure: the EPVENT 2 trial

Open access
Turbil, Emanuele, Galerneau, Louis Marie, Terzi, Nicolas, Schwebel, Carole, Argaud, Laurent, Guérin, Claude·2019·Journal of Thoracic Disease

Abstract

The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is an acute inflammatory lung edema. The current definition includes three severity stages based on PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio measured at positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 5 cmH 2 O or more (1). ARDS was described for the first time by Ashbaugh et al . in 1967; it was suggested that PEEP could have beneficial effects (2). More than 50 years after its initial description ARDS is still of great concern for the intensivist because it accounts for 10% of ICU admissions and still supports a rough 40% mortality rate (3). Furthermore, ARDS can only be treated in the ICU environment because it very often requires invasive mechanical ventilation and because the mechanical ventilation settings can impact patient outcome.

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 · 10.21037/jtd.2019.06.34

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • While the pilot study suggested benefit, the subsequent 200 patient multicentre RCT that compared PEEP titration guided by esophageal (PES) measurement versus empirical high PEEP-FiO2 titration, showed no significant difference in a composite outcome of death and days free from mechanical ventilation through day 28.

    “While the pilot study suggested benefit [448], the subsequent 200 patient multicentre RCT that compared PEEP titration guided by esophageal (PES) measurement versus empirical high PEEP-FiO2 titration, showed no significant difference in a composite outcome of death and days free from mechanical ventilation through day 28 [449].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Turbil, E., Galerneau, L. M., Terzi, N., Schwebel, C., Argaud, L., & Guérin, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Sassari (IT)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Grenoble (FR)
  • Université de Lyon (FR)
  • Inserm (FR)
Corresponding author
Guérin, Claude
Venue
Journal of Thoracic Disease
Published
2019-09
Volume
11
Issue
S15
Pages
S2012-S2017
ISSN
  • 2072-1439 (ISSN-L)
  • 2077-6624
OpenAlex
W2949691256
Cited by
8
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2018: 1
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Journal of Thoracic Disease (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Neonatal Respiratory Health Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Airway Management and Intubation Techniques
Keywords
positive end-expiratory pressure, PEEP titration, transpulmonary pressure, mechanical ventilation, acute respiratory distress syndrome

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