Efficacy and safety of several common drugs in the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome: A systematic review and network meta-analysis
Liu QK., Xiang GH., Liu WL., Dong JY., Wen YQ., Hao H.
Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 3492, published in Medicine (Baltimore) (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Meta-analysis
- Journal
- Medicine (Baltimore) (2024)
- Reported sample size
- 3492
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 39809198
- PMCID
- PMC11596352
- DOI
- 10.1097/md.0000000000040472
Abstract (original English)
Background This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of neuromuscular blockers, mesenchymal stem cells (MSC), and inhaled pulmonary vasodilators (IV) for acute respiratory distress syndrome through a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods We searched Chinese and English databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMbase, with no time restrictions. We conducted a network meta-analysis and reported the results according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. We included 27 clinical RCTs, all of which were two-arm trials, totaling 3492 patients. We selected 28-day mortality as the primary outcome measure, whereas 90-day mortality, ventilator-free days, and oxygenation served as secondary outcome measures for analysis and comparison. Results We selected 3 treatment modalities and evaluated their clinical trials in comparison with the standard control group. For the 28-day in-hospital mortality, we included 21 RCTs, involving 2789 patients. Compared to standard treatment, neuromuscular blockers were associated with reduced 28-day hospital mortality (odds ratios [OR] 0.52, 95% confidence intervals [CI] (0.31, 0.88)), while IV and MSC were not associated with reduced hospital mortality (OR 0.89, 95% CI (0.50, 1.55); OR 0.90, 95% CI (0.49, 1.66)). In ter
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.