Effectiveness of prone position in acute respiratory distress syndrome and moderating factors of obesity class and treatment durations for COVID-19 patients: A meta-analysis

ObjectivesTo examine the effectiveness of prone positioning on COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome with moderating factors in both traditional prone positioning (invasive mechanical ventilation) and awake self-prone positioning patients (non-invasive ventilation).Research methodologyA comprehensive search was conducted in CINAHL, Cochrane library, Embase, Medline-OVID, NCBI SARS-CoV-2 Resources, ProQuest, Scopus, and Web of Science without language restrictions. All studies with prospective and experimental designs evaluating the effect of prone position patients with COVID-19 related to acute respiratory distress syndrome were included. Pooled standardised mean differences were calculated after prone position for primary (PaO₂/FiO₂) and secondary outcomes (SpO₂ and PaO₂)ResultsA total of 15 articles were eligible and included in the final analysis. Prone position had a statistically significant effect in improving PaO₂/FiO₂ with standardised mean difference of 1.10 (95%CI 0.60–1.59), SpO₂ with standardised mean difference of 3.39 (95% CI 1.30–5.48), and PaO₂ with standardised mean difference of 0.77 (95% CI 0.19–1.35). Patients with higher body mass index and longer duration/day are associated with larger standardised mean difference effect sizes for prone positioning.ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate that prone position significantly improved oxygen saturation in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in both traditional prone positioning and awake self-prone positioning patients. Prone position should be recommended for patients with higher body mass index and longer durations to obtain the maximum effect.