ArticleFrontiers in neurology2024
Derivation and validation of a quantitative risk prediction model for weaning and extubation in neurocritical patients.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Real-Time Predictive Analysis of ICU Ventilator Weaning Failure: A Prospective Validation Study.The clinical respiratory journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with severe neurological conditions are at high risk during withdrawal and extubation, so it is important to establish a model that can quantitatively predict the risk of this procedure. Methods: By analyzing the data of patients with traumatic brain injury and tracheal intubation in the ICU of the affiliated hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, a total of 200 patients were included, of which 140 were in the modeling group and 60 were in the validation group. Through binary logistic regression analysis, 8 independent risk factors closely related to the success of extubation were screened out, including age ≥ 65 years old, APACHE II score ≥ 15 points, combined chronic pulmonary disease, GCS score < 8 points, oxygenation index <300, cough reflex, sputum suction frequency, and swallowing function. Results: Based on these factors, a risk prediction scoring model for extubation was constructed with a critical value of 18 points. The AUC of the model was 0.832, the overall prediction accuracy was 81.5%, the specificity was 81.6%, and the sensitivity was 84.1%. The data of the validation group showed that the AUC of the model was 0.763, the overall prediction accuracy was 79.8%, the specificity was 84.8%, and the sensitivity was 64.0%. Conclusion: These results suggest that the extubation risk prediction model constructed through quantitative scoring has good predictive accuracy and can provide a scientific basis for clinical practice, helping to assess and predict extubation risk, thereby improving the success rate of extubation and improving patient prognosis.
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.