Abstract
The systematic review and meta-analysis performed by Kang et al about the effect of extended prone positioning in intubated COVID-19 patients with ARDS presents valuable findings on the effectiveness and safety of extended prone positioning, but also raises several concerns which require clarifications. The inclusion of observational studies without any control group, the use of crude rather than adjusted estimates in key variables from observational studies, an error in data extraction from randomized clinical trials, and the employment of odds ratios rather than risk ratios, may mislead interpretations of the aforementioned intervention.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
