ArticlePloS one2015
Trend analysis and outcome prediction in mechanically ventilated patients: a nationwide population-based study in Taiwan.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can we predict patients that will not benefit from invasive mechanical ventilation? A novel scoring system in intensive care: the IMV Mortality Prediction Score (IMPRES)Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2019Observational
- Effect of Institutional Case Volume on In-Hospital and Long-Term Mortality in Critically Ill Patients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation for 48 Hours or More.Journal of Korean medical science · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the relationship between changes in patient attributes and hospital attributes over time and to explore predictors of medical utilization and mortality rates in mechanical ventilation (MV) patients in Taiwan.
backgroundProviding effective medical care for MV patients is challenging and requires good planning and effective clinical decision making policies. Most studies of MV, however, have only analyzed a single regional ventilator weaning center or respiratory care unit, high-quality population-based studies of MV trends and outcomes are scarce.
methodsThis population-based cohort study retrospectively analyzed 213,945 MV patients treated during 2004-2009.
resultsDuring the study period, the percentages of MV patients with the following characteristics significantly increased: age ≦ 65 years, treatment at a medical center, and treatment by a high-volume physician. In contrast, the percentages of MV patients treated at local hospitals and by low-volume physicians significantly decreased (P<0.001). Age, gender, Deyo-Charlson co-morbidity index, teaching hospital, hospital level, hospital volume, and physician volume were significantly associated with MV outcome (P<0.001). Over the 6-year period analyzed in this study, the estimated mean hospital treatment cost increased 48.8% whereas mean length of stay decreased 13.9%. The estimated mean overall survival time for MV patients was 16.4 months (SD 0.4 months), and the overall in-hospital 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 61.0%, 36.7%, 17.3%, and 9.6%, respectively.
conclusionsThese population-based data revealed increases in the percentages of MV patients treated at medical centers and by high-volume physicians, especially in younger patients. Notably, although LOS for MV patients decreased, hospital treatment costs increased. Healthcare providers and patients should recognize that attributes of both the patient and the hospital may affect outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.