ReviewWorld journal of critical care medicine2024
Clinical prediction scores predicting weaning failure from invasive mechanical ventilation: Role and limitations.
Review in World journal of critical care medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) has become integral to modern-day critical care. Even though critically ill patients frequently require IMV support, weaning from IMV remains an arduous task, with the reported weaning failure (WF) rates being as high as 50%. Optimizing the timing for weaning may aid in reducing time spent on the ventilator, associated adverse effects, patient discomfort, and medical care costs. Since weaning is a complex process and WF is often multi-factorial, several weaning scores have been developed to predict WF and aid decision-making. These scores are based on the patient's physiological and ventilatory parameters, but each has limitations. This review highlights the current role and limitations of the various clinical prediction scores available to predict WF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.