ReviewBritish journal of anaesthesia2024
Clinical practice, decision-making, and use of clinical decision support systems in invasive mechanical ventilation: a narrative review.
Review in British journal of anaesthesia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Factors Influencing the Implementation and Adoption of Digital Nursing Technologies: Systematic Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Facilitators and Barriers of Using Smart Bedside Station Systems Among Hospitalized Patients: A Qualitative Study Based on UTAUT.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Contextualising ventilation decisions: an ethnographic study of factors shaping interprofessional decision-making.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Acceptance of Electronic Medical Records Among Practitioner Nurses and Nurse Managers Using the UTAUT Framework in Hospital Settings: A Scoping Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
- Article
- Machine learning for prediction of weaning and extubation from mechanical ventilation: a systematic review of methodology, reporting and bias.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Article
- Review
- Nurse-led evidence-based protocolized weaning for invasive mechanical ventilation patients in the ICU: a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
- Use of ultrasonic left ventricular pressure-strain loops to predict weaning failure in critically ill patients: a pilot study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- A randomized control trial evaluating the advice of a physiological-model/digital twin-based decision support system on mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.Frontiers in medicine · 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
Abstract
Invasive mechanical ventilation is a key supportive therapy for patients on intensive care. There is increasing emphasis on personalised ventilation strategies. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have been developed to support this. We conducted a narrative review to assess evidence that could inform device implementation. A search was conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE. Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Role allocation is well described, with interprofessional collaboration dependent on culture, nurse:patient ratio, the use of protocols, and perception of responsibility. There were no descriptions of process measures, quality metrics, or clinical workflow. Nurse-led weaning is well-described, with factors grouped by patient, nurse, and system. Physician-led weaning is heterogenous, guided by subjective and objective information, and 'gestalt'. No studies explored decision-making with CDSS. Several explored facilitators and barriers to implementation, grouped by clinician (facilitators: confidence using CDSS, retaining decision-making ownership; barriers: undermining clinician's role, ambiguity moving off protocol), intervention (facilitators: user-friendly interface, ease of workflow integration, minimal training requirement; barriers: increased documentation time), and organisation (facilitators: system-level mandate; barriers: poor communication, inconsistent training, lack of technical support). One study described factors that support CDSS implementation. There are gaps in our understanding of ventilation practice. A coordinated approach grounded in implementation science is required to support CDSS implementation. Future research should describe factors that guide clinical decision-making throughout mechanical ventilation, with and without CDSS, map clinical workflow, and devise implementation toolkits. Novel research design analogous to a learning organisation, that considers the commercial aspects of device design, is required.
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.