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.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
