Observational studyBMJ open2021
Feasibility of implementing
Observational study in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02988167 (Introducing and Evaluating Extubation AdvisorTM), which is not on this 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.
Introducing and Evaluating Extubation AdvisorTM: A Pilot Phase I Observational Study of a Novel Clinical Decision Support Tool to Improve Extubation Decision-making in the Intensive Care Unit
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Liberation from mechanical ventilation using Extubation Advisor Decision Support (LEADS): protocol for a multicentre pilot trial.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Clinical practice, decision-making, and use of clinical decision support systems in invasive mechanical ventilation: a narrative review.British journal of anaesthesia · 2024Review
- Development and validation of a novel nomogram to predict the risk of the prolonged postoperative length of stay for lumbar spinal stenosis patients.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAlthough spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) are standard of care to extubation readiness, no tool exists that optimises prediction and standardises assessment. In this study, we evaluated the feasibility and clinical impressions of Extubation Advisor (EA), a comprehensive clinical extubation decision support (CDS) tool.
designPhase I mixed-methods observational study.
settingTwo Canadian intensive care units (ICUs).
participantsWe included patients on mechanical ventilation for ≥24 hours and clinicians (respiratory therapists and intensivists) responsible for extubation decisions.
interventionsComponents included a predictive model assessment, feasibility evaluation, questionnaires and interviews with clinicians.
resultsWe enrolled 117 patients, totalling 151 SBTs and 80 extubations. The incidence of extubation failure was 11% in low-risk patients and 21% in high-risk patients stratified by the predictive model; 38% failed extubation when both the model and clinical impression were at high risk. The tool was well rated: 94% and 75% rated the data entry and EA report as average or better, respectively. Interviews (n=15) revealed favourable impressions regarding its user interface and functionality, but unexpectedly, also concerns regarding EA's potential impact on respiratory therapists' job security.
conclusionsEA implementation was feasible, and users perceived it to have potential to support extubation decision-making. This study helps to understand bedside implementation of CDS tools in a multidisciplinary ICU. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02988167.
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.