ArticleIntensive care medicine2025
Best clinical model predicting extubation failure: a diagnostic accuracy post hoc analysis.
Article in Intensive care medicine, 2025. 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.
- Risk prediction models for extubation failure in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Physiological Effects of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Compared With Conventional Oxygen Therapy: A Randomized Trial in Postextubation Patients.Critical care medicine · 2026Trial
- Noninvasive ventilation in postoperative critically ill patients with morbid obesity: secondary analysis of the EXTUBOBESE multicentre randomised clinical trial.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Trial
- Interpreting reductions in reintubation after extubation: clinical implications and future directions. Author's reply.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Decreased CD3 + CD4+ T lymphocyte count predicts 28-day all-cause mortality in severe AECOPD patients admitted to the ICU: a retrospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Update on acute respiratory failure.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Assessment of Respiratory Mechanics and Inspiratory Effort During Spontaneous Breathing Trials to Predict Extubation Failure in High-Risk Patients.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Article
- Is Measurement of Inspiratory Effort and Respiratory Mechanics before Ventilator Weaning a Step toward Personalized Medicine?American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Article
- Bridging the Gap: The Role of Non-Invasive Respiratory Supports in Weaning from Invasive Mechanical Ventilation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The Additional Prognostic Value of Serial Biomarker Measurements for Extubation Failure Among Patients With COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.Biomarker insights · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePredicting extubation failure remains a clinical challenge. This study aimed to determine diagnostic accuracy of models used at the bed side.
methodsPost hoc analysis of 2341 patients at all risk included in five multicenter randomized trials. Diagnostic accuracy of three clinical prediction models was compared: 3-factors model including age > 65y, chronic heart or pulmonary disease; 4-factors model adding prolonged mechanical ventilation; and 11-factors model including age > 65 years, ≥ 2 comorbidities, prolonged mechanical ventilation, acute heart failure as the primary indication for mechanical ventilation, moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, APACHE II score > 12 on extubation day, airway patency problems, inability to deal with respiratory secretions, not simple weaning, obesity, or hypercapnia at the end of the spontaneous breathing trial. Crude and adjusted for spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) models were compared for all-cause reintubation at 7 days using Youden and Kappa indexes.
resultsThe 3-factors model had a very low global prediction capability (Youden index 0.08 and Kappa index 0.04); the 4-factors and 11-factors models had low global prediction capability (Youden index 0.12 and 0.16, and Kappa index 0.06 and 0.07, respectively). Aggressive SBT strategies (pressure support ≥ 7 cm H
conclusionBased on these results, the 3-factors model reported a very low diagnostic accuracy, and the 4 or 11-factors models showed similar low accuracy. No improvement was observed after adjusting for other aspects of 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.