z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Ventilator for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome
Author(s) -
Yan Gao,
Ya-long He
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.59
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1536-5964
pISSN - 0025-7974
DOI - 10.1097/md.0000000000013686
Subject(s) - medicine , ards , intensive care medicine , cinahl , randomized controlled trial , medline , cochrane library , meta analysis , adverse effect , systematic review , psychological intervention , psychiatry , lung , political science , law
Background: Ventilator has been reported to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, its efficacy is still inconclusive. This systematic review and meta-analysis study aims to evaluate its efficacy and safety for the treatment of patients with ARDS. Methods: The electronic databases of Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, MEDILINE, CINAHL, allied and complementary medicine database (AMED) and 4 Chinese databases will be used to search relevant literature from their inception to the present to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ventilator for ARDS without the language restrictions. This study will only consider randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ventilator for the treatment of ARDS. The Cochrane risk of bias tool will be utilized to assess the quality of the included RCTs studies. The primary outcomes include arterial blood gases values (recorded once a day) and ventilator settings. The secondary outcomes will include the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score, quality of life, cost, death, and any other adverse events. The summary results will be performed by using the models of random-effects or fixed-effects based on the heterogeneity of the included RCTs. Results: The results will be disseminated to peer-reviewed journals for publication. This study does not need ethics approval, because of no individual data will be involved. The results of this study will help clinicians and health policy-makers to refer for the policy or guideline making. Conclusion: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis study may provide helpful evidence for the efficacy and safety of ventilator for ARDS. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42018 115409.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here