Observational studyTurkish journal of medical sciences2019
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)
Observational study in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preferences for mechanical ventilation modes among intensivists in Türkiye: a nationwide point-prevalence study.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Mortality rate analysis of patients on invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit on day 28.Biomedical reports · 2024Article
- Machine Learning Models to Predict 30-Day Mortality in Mechanically Ventilated Patients.Journal of clinical 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: The present study aimed to define the clinical and laboratory criteria for predicting patients that will not benefit from invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) treatment and determine the prediction of mortality and prognosis of these critical ill patients. Materials and methods: The study was designed as an observational, multicenter, prospective, and cross-sectional clinical study. It was conducted by 75 researchers at 41 centers in intensive care units (ICUs) located in various geographical areas of Turkey. It included a total of 1463 ICU patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) treatment. A total of 158 parameters were examined via logistic regression analysis to identify independent risk factors for mortality; using these data, the IMV Mortality Prediction Score (IMPRES) scoring system was developed. Results: The following cut-off scores were used to indicate mortality risk: <2, low risk; 2–5, moderate risk; 5.1–8, high risk; >8, very high risk. There was a 26.8% mortality rate among the 254 patients who had a total IMPRES score of lower than 2. The mortality rate was 93.3% for patients with total IMPRES scores of greater than 8 (P < 0.001). Conclusion: The present study included a large number of patients from various geographical areas of the country who were admitted to various types of ICUs, had diverse diagnoses and comorbidities, were intubated with various indications in either urgent or elective settings, and were followed by physicians from various specialties. Therefore, our data are more general and can be applied to a broader population. This study devised a new scoring system for decision-making for critically ill patients as to whether they need to be intubated or not and presents a rapid and accurate prediction of mortality and prognosis prior to ICU admission using simple clinical data.
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.