Abstract
Introduction Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a type of acute respiratory failure characterized by non-cardiac pulmonary edema caused by various underlying conditions. ARDS is often pathologically characterized by diffuse alveolar damage (DAD), and its pathological findings have been reported to be associated with prognosis, although the adverse effects of lung biopsies to obtain pathological findings are still unclear. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to reveal the safety and feasibility of lung biopsy in the diagnosis of ARDS.
Methods and analysis We will include studies that were published in MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until June 1, 2020. We will include the reports for critically ill patients in an intensive care unit or emergency department who undergo lung biopsy and require a mechanical ventilation. Two review authors will independently scan titles and abstracts of all identified studies. Furthermore, these two authors will read and assess the full text of study reports to identify trials that appeared broadly to address the subject of the review. We will perform a risk of bias assessment using the McMaster Quality Assessment Scale of Harms.
Ethics and dissemination This study will be based on the published data, therefore, it does not require ethical approval. The final results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
UMIN registration number UMIN000040650
Strengths and limitations of this study
This protocol complies with the Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol guidelines.
This systematic review and meta-analysis will assess the safety and feasibility of lung biopsy in patients with ARDS.
We will evaluate the risk of bias and report according to the McMaster Quality Assessment Scale of Harms.
This review will include the reports about only adult patients with acute respiratory failure.
We will plan to exclude non-English databases in this study.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study will be based on the published data, therefore, it does not require ethical approval.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.
