ArticleScientific reports2025
Airway management and functional outcomes in intubated patients with ischemic stroke.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Timing of Tracheostomy and Association with Ventilator Liberation, Length of Stay, and Discharge Outcomes in Neurocritical Patients.Tracheostomy (Warrenville, Ill.) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We investigated the functional outcomes in ischemic stroke patients who underwent endotracheal intubation according to airway management (i.e., extubation success, extubation failure, primary tracheostomy) at multiple time points. Patients were classified into three groups: extubation success, extubation failure, and primary tracheostomy. Their functional outcomes were compared at hospital discharge, 3-month, and 1-year. Out of 165 ischemic stroke patients, 84 (50.9%) underwent extubation attempt and 81 (49.1%) underwent primary tracheostomy. Among the patients who underwent extubation, 26 (31.0%) experienced extubation failure. The extubation success group had a higher rate of achieving a favorable functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale 0-4) compared to the extubation failure group at hospital discharge (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.93; 95% CI, 1.33-13.1; p = 0.018) and at 3-month (aOR 5.67; 95% CI 1.79-19.8; p = 0.004), but not at 1-year (aOR 2.99; 95% CI 0.96-9.68; p = 0.061). The primary tracheostomy group had a significantly lower rate of achieving a favorable functional outcome at all time points compared to the extubation failure group. These findings suggest that a condition suitable for an extubation attempt may be a more important 1-year prognostic indicator than extubation failure. Despite its limitations, this study suggests that the clinical condition prompting primary tracheostomy may outweigh extubation failure as a determinant of 1-year prognosis. However, prospective studies are needed to validate it and clarify its clinical implications.
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.