ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2020
Automatic detection of reverse-triggering related asynchronies during mechanical ventilation in ARDS patients using flow and pressure signals.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Let's get in sync: current standing and future of AI-based detection of patient-ventilator asynchrony.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence and machine learning in acute respiratory distress syndrome management: recent advances.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Closing the Gap in Patient-Ventilator Discordance Recognition.Respiratory care · 2024Article
- Reverse Triggered Breath during Pressure Support Ventilation and Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist at Increasing Propofol Infusion.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- The oesophageal balloon for respiratory monitoring in ventilated patients: updated clinical review and practical aspects.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2023Review
- What is new in respiratory monitoring?Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2022Review
- Reconstructing asynchrony for mechanical ventilation using a hysteresis loop virtual patient model.Biomedical engineering online · 2022Article
- Reverse Triggering: An Introduction to Diagnosis, Management, and Pharmacologic Implications.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
- Accuracy of Algorithms and Visual Inspection for Detection of Trigger Asynchrony in Critical Patients : A Systematic Review.Critical care research and practice · 2021Review
- Risk Factors for Patient-Ventilator Asynchrony and Its Impact on Clinical Outcomes: Analytics Based on Deep Learning Algorithm.Frontiers in medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Asynchrony due to reverse-triggering (RT) may appear in ARDS patients. The objective of this study is to validate an algorithm developed to detect these alterations in patient-ventilator interaction. We developed an algorithm that uses flow and airway pressure signals to classify breaths as normal, RT with or without breath stacking (BS) and patient initiated double-triggering (DT). The diagnostic performance of the algorithm was validated using two datasets of breaths, that are classified as stated above. The first dataset classification was based on visual inspection of esophageal pressure (Pes) signal from 699 breaths recorded from 11 ARDS patients. The other classification was obtained by vote of a group of 7 experts (2 physicians and 5 respiratory therapists, who were trained in ICU), who evaluated 1881 breaths gathered from recordings from 99 subjects. Experts used airway pressure and flow signals for breaths classification. The RT with or without BS represented 19% and 37% of breaths in Pes dataset while their frequency in the expert's dataset were 3% and 12%, respectively. The DT was very infrequent in both datasets. Algorithm classification accuracy was 0.92 (95% CI 0.89-0.94, P < 0.001) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.95-0.97, P < 0.001), in comparison with Pes and experts' opinion. Kappa statistics were 0.86 and 0.84, respectively. The algorithm precision, sensitivity and specificity for individual asynchronies were excellent. The algorithm yields an excellent accuracy for detecting clinically relevant asynchronies related to RT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31853811What 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.