Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30382306›Full record

SynthesisIntensive care medicine2018

Non-invasive ventilation as a strategy for weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.

Joyce Yeung, Keith Couper, Elizabeth G Ryan, Simon Gates, Nick Hart, Gavin D Perkins

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Intensive care medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Patterns and Predictors ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Wean to Win.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
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

6 authors.

Joyce YeungWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. j.yeung.4@warwick.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2950-4758
Keith CouperWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Elizabeth G RyanWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Simon GatesCancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Nick HartLane Fox Respiratory Unit, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London, London, UK.
Gavin D PerkinsWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 10/134/06Department of Health PDF-2015-08-109Medical Research Council MR/N028287/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to answer the question 'In adults with respiratory failure requiring invasive ventilation for more than 24 h, does a weaning strategy with early extubation to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) compared to invasive ventilation weaning reduce all-cause hospital mortality?'

methodsWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that evaluated the use of non-invasive ventilation, compared to invasive ventilation, as a weaning strategy in adults mechanically ventilated for at least 24 h. The EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) bibliographic databases were searched from inception to February 2018. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to perform the meta-analysis. The primary outcome was mortality at hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included mortality (30, 60, 90 and 180 days), quality of life, duration of invasive ventilation, weaning failure, length of stay [intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital] and adverse events.

resultsTwenty-five relevant studies involving 1609 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Studies had moderate to high risk of bias due to risk of performance and detection bias. Mortality at hospital discharge was lower in the NIV weaning group compared to the invasive weaning group [pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.58, 95% highest density interval (HDI) 0.29-0.89]. Subgroup analyses showed lower pooled mortality at hospital discharge rates in NIV weaning than those in the control group in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients (pooled OR 0.43, 95% HDI 0.13-0.81) and the effect is less certain in the mixed ICU population (pooled OR 0.88, 95% HDI 0.25-1.48). NIV weaning reduced the duration of invasive ventilation in patients [standardised mean difference (SMD) - 1.34, 95% HDI - 1.92 to - 0.77] and ICU length of stay (SMD - 0.70, 95% HDI - 0.94 to - 0.46). Reported rates of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) were lower in the NIV group. NIV weaning did not reduce overall hospital length of stay or long-term mortality. There were insufficient data to compare other adverse events and health-related quality of life.

conclusionsThe use of NIV in weaning from mechanical ventilation decreases hospital mortality, the incidence of VAP and ICU length of stay. NIV as a weaning strategy appears to be most beneficial in patients with COPD.

Indexed as

Critical CareNoninvasive VentilationVentilator WeaningHospital MortalityHumansLength of StayRespiratory InsufficiencyBayes theoremInvasive mechanical ventilationNon-invasive ventilationSystematic reviewWeaning

Identifiers

PMID30382306
PMCPMC6280833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.