ArticleInternal medicine (Tokyo, Japan)2025
Predictive Factors for Invasive Mechanical Ventilation in Community-acquired Pneumonia.
Article in Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective Community-acquired pneumonia is an acute infectious disease with potentialy life-threatening consequences. Because invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) requires the attention of many medical staff, early risk prediction at the time of admission is expected to lead to a predictable course of patient care and the appropriate allocation of medical resources. There are a limited number of reports on predictive factors for IMV, such as SMART-COP. Therefore, further studies are required. Methods We retrospectively reviewed cases of patients with community-acquired pneumonia other than coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to our institution from 2002 to 2019. We performed competing risks analysis with the need for IMV from the day after admission as the outcome and used multivariable analysis to identify predictive factors of IMV from admission characteristics. Results Among 2,227 patients (mean age 67.3 years, 69.0% male), 39 patients required IMV on or after the day following admission. A multivariable analysis showed that predictive factors of IMV were respiratory rate >30 breaths/min [subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR), 5.53; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.09 to 14.67; p=0.001], PaO
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.