Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29970159›Full record

Observational studyBMC research notes2018

Modes of mechanical ventilation vary between hospitals and intensive care units within a university healthcare system: a retrospective observational study.

Craig S Jabaley, Robert F Groff, Milad Sharifpour, Jayashree K Raikhelkar, James M Blum

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC research notes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Pressure support ventilation in intensive care patients receiving prolonged invasive ventilation.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Invasive mechanical ventilation in the emergency department.Turkish journal of emergency medicine · 2019
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Craig S JabaleyDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Emory University, 1364 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA. csjabaley@emory.edu.
Robert F GroffDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Emory University, 1364 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Milad SharifpourDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Emory University, 1364 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Jayashree K RaikhelkarDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Emory University, 1364 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
James M BlumDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Emory University, 1364 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAs evidence-based guidance to aid clinicians with mechanical ventilation mode selection is scant, we sought to characterize the epidemiology thereof within a university healthcare system and hypothesized that nonconforming approaches could be readily identified. We conducted an exploratory retrospective observational database study of routinely recorded mechanical ventilation parameters between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2016 from 12 intensive care units. Mode epoch count proportions were examined using Chi squared and Fisher exact tests as appropriate on an inter-unit basis with outlier detection for two test cases via post hoc pairwise analyses of a binomial regression model.

resultsFinal analysis included 559,734 mode epoch values. Significant heterogeneity was demonstrated between individual units (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). One unit demonstrated heightened utilization of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, and three units demonstrated frequent synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation utilization. Assist control ventilation was the most commonly recorded mode (51%), followed by adaptive support ventilation (23.1%). Volume-controlled modes were about twice as common as pressure-controlled modes (64.4% versus 35.6%). Our methodology provides a means by which to characterize the epidemiology of mechanical ventilation approaches and identify nonconforming practices. The observed variability warrants further clinical study about contributors and the impact on relevant outcomes.

Indexed as

Academic Medical CentersIntensive Care UnitsRespiration, ArtificialVentilator WeaningHumansRetrospective StudiesUniversitiesIntensive careMechanical ventilatorsNoninvasive ventilationPositive pressure ventilationRespiratory failureVentilator weaning

Identifiers

PMID29970159
PMCPMC6029057

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.