Trial reportBMJ open2022
Development and validation of a mechanical power-oriented prediction model of weaning failure in mechanically ventilated patients: a retrospective cohort study.
Trial report in BMJ open, 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.
- Ventilation Intensity and Prognosis in Pediatric Oncology: Mechanical Power, Compliance, and Mortality Risk.Pediatric pulmonology · 2026Observational
- Mechanical power normalized to dynamic lung compliance as a predictor of weaning and prognosis in mechanically ventilated patients: a retrospective cohort study.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Observational
- The association of ventilator mechanical power with weaning outcomes in intensive care unit patients: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Review
- A Nomogram of Weaning Failure for Critical Ventilated Patients in High-Altitude Areas: A Single-Center Cohort Study Using Lasso Logistic Regression.Anesthesiology research and practice · 2025Article
- Mechanical power density, spontaneous breathing indexes, and prolonged weaning failure: a prospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2024Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and validate a mechanical power (MP)-oriented prediction model of weaning failure in mechanically ventilated patients.
designA retrospective cohort study.
settingData were collected from the large US Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV (MIMIC-IV) V.1.0, which integrates comprehensive clinical data from 76 540 intensive care unit (ICU) admissions from 2008 to 2019.
participantsA total of 3695 patients with invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours and weaned with T-tube ventilation strategies were enrolled from the MIMIC-IV database. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME: Weaning failure.
resultsAll eligible patients were randomised into development cohorts (n=2586, 70%) and validation cohorts (n=1109, 30%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis of the development cohort showed that positive end-expiratory pressure, dynamic lung compliance, MP, inspired oxygen concentration, length of ICU stay and invasive mechanical ventilation duration were independent predictors of weaning failure. Calibration curves showed good correlation between predicted and observed outcomes. The prediction model showed accurate discrimination in the development and validation cohorts, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values of 0.828 (95% CI: 0.812 to 0.844) and 0.833 (95% CI: 0.809 to 0.857), respectively. Decision curve analysis indicated that the predictive model was clinically beneficial.
conclusionThe MP-oriented model of weaning failure accurately predicts the risk of weaning failure in mechanical ventilation patients and provides valuable information for clinicians making decisions on weaning.
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.