Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32166566›Full record

ReviewThe ultrasound journal2020

Mechanical ventilation weaning issues can be counted on the fingers of just one hand: part 1.

Luigi Vetrugno, Giovanni Maria Guadagnin, Alessandro Brussa, Daniele Orso, Eugenio Garofalo, Andrea Bruni, Federico Longhini, Tiziana Bove

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The ultrasound journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06617156 (Comparison of Different Ventilator Measurement Methods of Rapid Shallow Breathing Index With Traditional Methods For Prediction Successful Extubation), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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.

NCT06617156 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of Different Ventilator Measurement Methods of Rapid Shallow Breathing Index With Traditional Methods For Prediction Successful Extubation

TypeobservationalSponsorNational Taiwan University HospitalRan2024 to 2025Enrolled200ConditionsRespiratory FailureArmsRSBI Value Evaluation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Luigi VetrugnoAnesthesiology and Intensive Care Clinic, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, Via Colugna 50, 33100, Udine, Italy. luigi.vetrugno@uniud.it.
Giovanni Maria GuadagninAnesthesiology and Intensive Care Clinic, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, Via Colugna 50, 33100, Udine, Italy. giovannimaria.guadagnin@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9670-7937
Alessandro BrussaAnesthesiology and Intensive Care Clinic, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, Via Colugna 50, 33100, Udine, Italy.
Daniele OrsoAnesthesiology and Intensive Care Clinic, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, Via Colugna 50, 33100, Udine, Italy.
Eugenio GarofaloIntensive Care Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University Hospital Mater Domini, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy.
Andrea BruniIntensive Care Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University Hospital Mater Domini, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy.
Federico LonghiniIntensive Care Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University Hospital Mater Domini, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy.
Tiziana BoveAnesthesiology and Intensive Care Clinic, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, Via Colugna 50, 33100, Udine, Italy.
University of Udine · ITMagna Graecia University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although mechanical ventilation may be a patient's vital ally during acute illness, it can quickly transform into an enemy during chronic conditions. The weaning process is the fundamental phase that enables the resumption of physiological respiratory function; however, it is also associated with a number of life-threatening complications, and a large percentage of critically ill patients never achieve airway device removal or require the resumption of mechanical ventilation just a few days post-weaning. Indeed, the weaning process is, at present, more of an art than a science. As such, there is urgent need for novel contributions from the scientific literature to abate the growing rates of morbidity and mortality associated with weaning failure. The physician attempting to wean a patient must integrate clinical parameters and common-sense criteria. Numerous studies have striven to identify single predictive factors of weaning failure and sought to standardize the weaning process, but the results are characterized by remarkable heterogeneity. Despite the lack of benchmarks, it is clear that the analysis of respiratory function must include a detailed overview of the five situations described below rather than a single aspect. The purpose of this two-part review is to provide a comprehensive description of these situations to clarify the "arena" physicians are entering when weaning critically ill patients from mechanical ventilation.

Indexed as

DiaphragmDiaphragm dysfunctionEchocardiographyMechanical ventilationUltrasoundWeaning

Identifiers

PMID32166566
PMCPMC7067937
OpenAlexW3011747394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.