ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2015
Extubation outcome after a successful spontaneous breathing trial: A multicenter validation of a 3-factor prediction model.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prediction of extubation outcome in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2021Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in intensive care units: a scoping review addressing the translational gap to clinical practice.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Liberation from mechanical ventilation using Extubation Advisor Decision Support (LEADS): protocol for a multicentre pilot trial.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Reintubation Summation Calculation: A Predictive Score for Extubation Failure in Critically Ill Patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to validate, and if necessary update, a predictive model previously developed using a classification and regression tree (CART) algorithm for predicting successful extubation (ES) using a new cohort. This prospective cohort study enrolled adults admitted to 10 intensive care units, who had successfully passed a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) and were considered ready for extubation. After extubation, the patients were followed up for 48 h. The primary outcome measure was ES, defined as the ability to maintain spontaneous unassisted breathing for >48 h after extubation. The 3-factor CART model was applied to patients in this cohort. The predicted probability of ES for each patient in this validation cohort was calculated based on the original CART model using the Laplace correction method. The performance was assessed by discrimination and calibration. A decision curve analysis was used assess the clinical net benefit (NB). Extubation failure (EF) occurred in 90/530 patients (17%). Among the 90 patients, 72 (13.6%) were reintubated, while 18 patients remained on rescue noninvasive ventilation within 48 h after extubation. The original CART model showed high discrimination but only moderate calibration with predicted probabilities that were systematically lower than expected. The original CART model was updated, and the updated model preserved excellent discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.87 to 0.93), but exhibited near-perfect calibration (calibration slope, 1; intercept, 0). Between threshold probabilities of 50 and 80%, the NB of using this updated model is significantly improved compared with the current strategy. The updated CART model may be used to estimate the predicted probability of ES after a successful SBT for individual patients. Applying this model appears to produce a substantial clinical consequence with regard to potential reduction in unexpected EFs.
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.