Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Recent advances in understanding acute respiratory distress syndrome

Wohlrab P., Kraft F., Tretter V., Ullrich R., Markstaller K., Klein KU.

Narrative Review, published in F1000Res (2018) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • 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
Read the A–D evidence level guide

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
Narrative Review
Journal
F1000Res (2018)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
29568488
PMCID
PMC5840611
DOI
10.12688/f1000research.11148.1
Citations
19

Abstract (original English)

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is characterized by acute diffuse lung injury, which results in increased pulmonary vascular permeability and loss of aerated lung tissue. This causes bilateral opacity consistent with pulmonary edema, hypoxemia, increased venous admixture, and decreased lung compliance such that patients with ARDS need supportive care in the intensive care unit to maintain oxygenation and prevent adverse outcomes. Recently, advances in understanding the underlying pathophysiology of ARDS led to new approaches in managing these patients. In this review, we want to focus on recent scientific evidence in the field of ARDS research and discuss promising new developments in the treatment of this disease.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.