ReviewCritical care research and practice2021
Accuracy of Algorithms and Visual Inspection for Detection of Trigger Asynchrony in Critical Patients : A Systematic Review.
Review in Critical care research and practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effects of real-time waveform analysis software on patient ventilator synchronization during pressure support ventilation: a randomized crossover physiological study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2024Trial
- The Ability of Critical Care Physicians to Identify Patient-Ventilator Asynchrony Using Waveform Analysis: A National Survey.Respiratory care · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to summarize the accuracy of the different methods for detecting trigger asynchrony at the bedside in mechanically ventilated patients.
methodA systematic review was conducted from 1990 to 2020 in PubMed, Lilacs, Scopus, and ScienceDirect databases. The reference list of the identified studies, reviews, and meta-analyses was also manually searched for relevant studies. The reference standards were esophageal pressure catheter and/or electrical activity of the diaphragm. Studies were assessed following the QUADAS-2 recommendations, while the review was prepared according to the PRISMA criteria.
resultsOne thousand one hundred and eleven studies were selected, and four were eligible for analysis. Esophageal pressure was the predominant reference standard, while visual inspection and algorithms/software comprised index tests. The trigger asynchrony, ineffective expiratory effort, double triggering, and reverse triggering were analyzed. Sensitivity and specificity ranged from 65.2% to 99% and 80% to 100%, respectively. Positive predictive values reached 80.3 to 100%, while the negative predictive values reached 92 to 100%. Accuracy could not be calculated for most studies.
conclusionAlgorithms/software validated directly or indirectly using reference standards present high sensitivity and specificity, with a diagnostic power similar to visual inspection of experts.
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.