Observational studyEuropean journal of pediatrics2025
Predicting extubation failure in neonates: The role of lung ultrasound and corrected gestational age in safe weaning in the NICU.
Observational study in European journal of pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of the neonatal intensive critical ultrasound workflow for managing neonatal acute pulmonary hypertension.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Breathe easy, baby, breathe. Lung ultrasound in neonatal critical care.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Review
- Neonatal evaluation by extended (12 area) vs. traditional (6 area) lung ultrasound scoring (NEXT-LUS): a prospective observational study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the accuracy of the lung ultrasound score (LUS) in predicting ventilatory weaning failure during neonatal hospitalization in the NICU and to identify factors associated with weaning failure, including corrected gestational age (CGA). This prospective, longitudinal, pragmatic and observational cohort study included neonates on mechanical ventilation for at least 48 h. The primary outcome was the accuracy of lung ultrasound in predicting 3-day weaning failure, with the ROC curve used to determine the best LUS cutoff (sensitivity and specificity). Among 55 neonates, the pre-extubation LUS did not show statistical significance in predicting weaning failure (AUC 0.61; 95% CI: 0.46-0.76, p = 0,169). In the subgroup analysis, a score ≥ 4 suggests the need for ventilatory support after extubation (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.80-1.0, p < 0.001) in neonates with GA ≥ 28 weeks. In extremely preterm infants, the pre-extubation LUS was not statistically significant in predicting weaning failure (AUC = 0.38, 95% CI: 0-0.77, p = 0.535). In contrast, CGA ≥ 28.7 weeks at extubation was predictor of successful weaning within 3 days (AUC = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.85-1.0, p < 0.001).
conclusionLUS show promise in predicting weaning failure, though its accuracy may be limited in extremely preterm infants, highlighting the need for further well-powered studies. CGA at extubation also emerges as a key consideration in this population, warranting confirmation through robust future research. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Identifying the optimal timing for extubation is crucial, as both prolonged mechanical ventilation and failed extubation are linked to increased morbidity. • Lung ultrasound plays a well-established role in diagnosing various neonatal lung pathologies, allowing clinicians to make rapid, bedside decisions for the treatment of newborns. WHAT IS NEW: • LUS appears to be accurate in predicting weaning failure, though its accuracy may be lower in extremely preterm infants. • In extremely preterm infants, CGA may play an important role in extubation decision-making. • These findings are hypothesis-generating and warrant further investigation in future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39825155What 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.