Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33454051›Full record

Observational studyBritish journal of anaesthesia2021

Clinically applicable approach for predicting mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19.

Nicholas J Douville, Christopher B Douville, Graciela Mentz, Michael R Mathis, Carlo Pancaro, Kevin K Tremper, Milo Engoren

Open access · bronzeAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in British journal of anaesthesia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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.

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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Machine Learning for Benchmarking Critical Care Outcomes.Healthcare informatics research · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nicholas J DouvilleDepartment of Anesthesiology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Institute of Healthcare Policy & Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Electronic address: ndouvill@med.umich.edu.
Christopher B DouvilleLudwig Center for Cancer Genetics and Therapeutics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Graciela MentzDepartment of Anesthesiology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Michael R MathisDepartment of Anesthesiology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Carlo PancaroDepartment of Anesthesiology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Kevin K TremperDepartment of Anesthesiology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Milo EngorenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Michigan Medicine · USJohns Hopkins University · USUniversity of Michigan · US

Funding

Early Diagnosis of Heart Failure: A Perioperative Data-Driven ApproachK01HL141701 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MATHIS, MICHAEL ROBERT · 2018 to 2022
$862k
NHLBI NIH HHS K01 HL141701
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring mechanical ventilation have high mortality and resource utilisation. The ability to predict which patients may require mechanical ventilation allows increased acuity of care and targeted interventions to potentially mitigate deterioration.

methodsWe included hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in this single-centre retrospective observational study. Our primary outcome was mechanical ventilation or death within 24 h. As clinical decompensation is more recognisable, but less modifiable, as the prediction window shrinks, we also assessed 4, 8, and 48 h prediction windows. Model features included demographic information, laboratory results, comorbidities, medication administration, and vital signs. We created a Random Forest model, and assessed performance using 10-fold cross-validation. The model was compared with models derived from generalised estimating equations using discrimination.

resultsNinety-three (23%) of 398 patients required mechanical ventilation or died within 14 days of admission. The Random Forest model predicted pending mechanical ventilation with good discrimination (C-statistic=0.858; 95% confidence interval, 0.841-0.874), which is comparable with the discrimination of the generalised estimating equation regression. Vitals sign data including SpO

conclusionMachine learning techniques can be leveraged to improve the ability to predict which patients with COVID-19 are likely to require mechanical ventilation, identifying unrecognised bellwethers and providing insight into the constellation of accompanying signs of respiratory failure in COVID-19.

Indexed as

AgedClinical Decision-MakingCOVID-19FemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsRespiration, ArtificialRetrospective StudiesCOVID-19critical care medicinemachine learningmechanical ventilationpredictive modelsrespiratory failurerespiratory insufficiency

Identifiers

PMID33454051
PMCPMC7833820
OpenAlexW3112005101

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.