ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Prediction Model of Extubation Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive Analysis of Extubation Failure in the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit in Bloemfontein, South Africa.Reports (MDPI) · 2026Article
- Association of extubation failure rate with patient outcomes.Acute and critical care · 2026Article
- Clinical predictors of extubation failure in postoperative critically ill patients: a post-hoc analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Observational
- Position Statement of ISCCM Committee on Weaning from Mechanical Ventilator.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2024Article
- 2022 Year in Review: Ventilator Liberation.Respiratory care · 2023Review
- Time definition of reintubation most relevant to patient outcomes in critically ill patients: a multicenter cohort study.Critical care (London, England) · 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
13 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Liberation from mechanical ventilation is of great importance owing to related complications from extended ventilation time. In this prospective multicenter study, we aimed to construct a versatile model for predicting extubation outcomes in critical care settings using obtainable physiological predictors. The study included patients who had been extubated after a successful 30 min spontaneous breathing trial (SBT). A multivariable logistic regression model was constructed to predict extubation outcomes (successful extubation without reintubation and uneventful extubation without reintubation or noninvasive respiratory support) using eight parameters: age, heart failure, respiratory disease, rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI), PaO2/FIO2, Glasgow Coma Scale score, fluid balance, and endotracheal suctioning episodes. Of 499 patients, 453 (90.8%) and 328 (65.7%) achieved successful and uneventful extubation, respectively. The areas under the curve for successful and uneventful extubation in the novel prediction model were 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.62−0.77) and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.65−0.74), respectively, which were significantly higher than those in the conventional model solely using RSBI (0.58 (95% CI, 0.50−0.66) and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.49−0.60), p = 0.004 and <0.001, respectively). The model was validated using a bootstrap method, and an online application was developed for automatic calculation. Our model, which is based on a combination of generally obtainable parameters, established an accessible method for predicting extubation outcomes after a successful SBT.
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.