ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Liberation from Mechanical Ventilation in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure or Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Efforts to liberate patients from invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) begin when the underlying cause of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) or adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) that led to use of invasive ventilation has resolved or improved and patients can initiate spontaneous breaths. In preparation for liberation, clinicians transition patients to spontaneous modes of ventilation as soon as possible while ensuring that patients' respiratory effort is not insufficient or excessive during weaning attempts. Concurrently, clinicians aim to minimize the effects of sedative and analgesic agents, screen daily to identify patients who are ready to undergo a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT), and conduct SBTs to help assess patients' readiness for extubation. Extubation failure is rarely the consequence of a single physiological abnormality. Rather, it reflects the interaction of multiple mechanisms that often coexist, including an imbalance between respiratory system load and capacity, ineffective cough, and secretion burden among others. For these reasons, single weaning parameters and SBTs may fail to identify some patients who are at risk for extubation failure. Conversely, indices and scores that combine two or more parameters and newer techniques may provide mechanistic insights into the pathways that lead to extubation failure, help to characterize 'at-risk' phenotypes, and identify patients who may benefit from closer monitoring, targeted therapeutic strategies, and/or early application of noninvasive respiratory support strategies such as high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and bilevel noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIV).
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.