Observational studyBMJ open2022
External validation of the ProVent score for prognostication of 1-year mortality of critically ill patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation: a single-centre, retrospective observational study in Austria.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The relationship between nutritional management and prognosis in children on prolonged mechanical ventilation.Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition · 2026Observational
- Development and validation of the Tracheostomy‑ProVent score to predict long-term mortality in patients on ventilator care > 21 days: a retrospective cohort study.Respiratory research · 2026Article
- Development of a Prognostic Scoring System for Tracheostomized Patients Requiring Prolonged Ventilator Care: A Ten-Year Experience in a University-Affiliated Tertiary Hospital.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation for at least 21 days, 1-year mortality can be estimated using the ProVent score, calculated from four variables (age, platelet count, vasopressor use and renal replacement therapy). We aimed to externally validate discrimination and calibration of the ProVent score and, if necessary, to update its underlying regression model.
designRetrospective, observational, single-centre study.
setting11 intensive care units at one tertiary academic hospital. PATIENTS: 780 critically ill adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 21 days. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: 1-year mortality after intensive care unit discharge.
results380 patients (49%) had died after 1 year. One-year mortality for ProVent scores from 0 to 5 were: 15%, 27%, 57%, 66%, 72% and 76%. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the ProVent probability model was 0.76 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.79), calibration intercept was -0.43 (95% CI -0.59 to -0.27) and calibration slope was 0.76 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.89). Model recalibration and extension by inclusion of three additional predictors (total bilirubin concentration, enteral nutrition and surgical status) improved model discrimination and calibration. Decision curve analysis demonstrated that the original ProVent model had negative net benefit, which was avoided with the extended ProVent model.
conclusionsThe ProVent probability model had adequate discrimination but was miscalibrated in our patient cohort and, as such, could potentially be harmful. Use of the extended ProVent score developed by us could possibly alleviate this concern.
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.