Skip to main content
. 2024 Mar 27;13:23. doi: 10.1186/s13741-024-00379-7

Table 3.

Quality of evidence by GRADE

Certainty assessment № of patients Effect Certainty Importance
№ of studies Study design Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Other considerations Ultrasound-guided Control Relative
(95% CI)
Absolute
(95% CI)
Incidence of atelectasis
 9 Randomized trials Not serious Not serious Not serious Not serious None 52/222 (23.4%) 169/221 (76.5%)

RR 0.31

(0.25 to 0.40)

528 fewer per 1000

(from 574 to 459 fewer)

⨁⨁⨁⨁

High

Critical
Subgroup analysis of atelectasis by age
 9 Randomized trials Not serious Not serious Not serious Not serious None 52/222 (23.4%) 169/221 (76.5%)

RR 0.31

(0.25 to 0.40)

528 fewer per 1000

(from 574 to 459 fewer)

⨁⨁⨁⨁

High

Critical
Subgroup analysis of atelectasis by age—age ≥ 18 (adult)
 3 Randomized trials Not serious Not serious Not serious Not serious None 25/60 (41.7%) 52/61 (85.2%)

RR 0.49

(0.36 to 0.67)

435 fewer per 1000

(from 546 to 281 fewer)

⨁⨁⨁⨁

High

Critical
Subgroup analysis of atelectasis by age—age < 18 (children)
 6 Randomized trials Not serious Not serious Not serious Not serious None 27/162 (16.7%) 117/160 (73.1%)

RR 0.23

(0.17 to 0.33)

563 fewer per 1000

(from 607 to 490 fewer)

⨁⨁⨁⨁

High

Critical
Subgroup analysis of atelectasis by LRM or Non-LRM used in the control group
 9 Randomized trials Not serious Not serious Not serious Not serious None 52/222 (23.4%) 169/221 (76.5%)

RR 0.31

(0.25 to 0.40)

528 fewer per 1000

(from 574 to 459 fewer)

⨁⨁⨁⨁

High

Critical
Subgroup analysis of atelectasis by LRM or non-LRM used in the control group-compare to LRM in the control group
 3 Randomized trials not serious Not serious Not serious Not serious None 14/100 (14.0%) 59/99 (59.6%)

RR 0.24

(0.14 to 0.39)

453 fewer per 1000

(from 513 to 364 fewer)

⨁⨁⨁⨁

High

Critical
Subgroup analysis of atelectasis by LRM or non-LRM used in the control group-compare to non-LRM in the control group
 6 Randomized trials Not serious Not serious Not serious Not serious None 38/122 (31.1%) 110/122 (90.2%)

RR 0.35

(0.27 to 0.46)

586 fewer per 1,000

(from 658 to 487 fewer)

⨁⨁⨁⨁

High

Critical
The application of PEEP after LRM
 9 Randomized trials Not serious Not serious Not serious Not serious None 52/222 (23.4%) 169/221 (76.5%)

RR 0.31

(0.25 to 0.40)

528 fewer per 1,000

(from 574 to 459 fewer)

⨁⨁⨁⨁

High

Critical
The application of PEEP after LRM-PEEP(ultrasound-guided) = PEEP (control)
 7 Randomized trials Not serious Not serious Not serious Not serious None 41/180 (22.8%) 131/180 (72.8%)

RR 0.32

(0.24 to 0.42)

495 fewer per 1000

(from 553 to 422 fewer)

⨁⨁⨁⨁

High

Critical
The application of PEEP after LRM-PEEP (ultrasound-guided) > PEEP (control)
 2 Randomized trials Not serious Not serious Not serious Not serious None 11/42 (26.2%) 38/41 (92.7%)

RR 0.29

(0.18 to 0.48)

658 fewer per 1000

(from 760 to 482 fewer)

⨁⨁⨁⨁

High

Critical
LUS after LRM
 6 Randomized trials Not serious Not serious Not serious Not serious None 122 122 -

MD 6.24 lower

(6.9 lower to 5.59 lower)

⨁⨁⨁⨁

High

Critical
LUS of each part of the lung after LRM
 2 Randomized trials Not serious Not serious Not serious Not serious None 120 123

MD 2.31 lower

(2.69 lower to 1.94 lower)

⨁⨁⨁⨁

High

Critical
LUS of each part of the lung after LRM–anterior
 2 Randomised trials Not serious Not serious Not serious Not serious None 40 41

MD 2 lower

(2.49 lower to 1.51 lower)

⨁⨁⨁⨁

High

Critical
LUS of each part of the lung after LRM–lateral
 2 Randomised trials Not serious Not serious Not serious Not serious None 40 41

MD 2.5 lower

(3.2 lower to 1.8 lower)

⨁⨁⨁⨁

High

Critical
LUS of each part of the lung after LRM-posterior
 2 Randomized trials Not serious Not serious Not serious Not serious None 40 41

MD 3.24 lower

(4.23 lower to 2.24 lower)

⨁⨁⨁⨁

High

Critical
Certainty assessment № of patients Effect Certainty Importance

CI confidence interval, MD mean difference, RR risk ratio