Trial reportCritical care (London, England)2025
What is the optimal approach to analyse ventilator-free days? A simulation study.
Trial report in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 4 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Clinical Network (ARDSNet)
Systematic Early Use of Neuromuscular Blocking Agents in ARDS Patients
Lung Imaging for Ventilatory Setting in ARDS
Dexamethasone and Oxygen Support Strategies in ICU Patients With Covid-19 pneumonia_COVIDICUS
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Higher (40%) versus lower (30%) FiOEuropean journal of pediatrics · 2025Trial
- Assessment of the effectiveness of protein in critical illness: the role of statistical shortcomings in explaining discrepancies between observational studies and randomized controlled trials.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Review
- Early levothyroxine sodium administration and clinical outcomes in patients with sepsis: a MIMIC-IV database analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Beyond the ventilator-free days: review of several estimands.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Review
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
Abstract
backgroundVentilator-free days (VFDs) are a composite outcome in critical care research, reflecting both survival and mechanical ventilation duration. However, analysis methods for VFDs are inconsistent, with some focusing on counts and others on time-to-event outcomes, while other approaches such as the multistate model and the win ratio have emerged. We aimed to evaluate various statistical models through simulations to identify the optimal approach for analysing VFDs.
methodsFirst, 16 datasets of 300 individuals were simulated, comparing a control group to an intervention with varying survival rates and ventilation durations. Various statistical models were evaluated for statistical power and Type I error rate. Four clinical trial datasets (LIVE study, NCT02149589; ARMA study, NCT00000579; ACURASYS study, NCT00299650; COVIDICUS study, NCT04344730) were then used to apply the same statistical models to analyse VFDs. Twelve statistical methods were evaluated, including count-based, time-to-event approaches, and the win-ratio. Additionally, sensitivity analyses were conducted.
resultsMost statistical methods effectively controlled Type I error rate, except for the zero-inflated and hurdle Poisson/negative binomial count submodels, as well as the cause-specific Cox regression model for death. The power to detect survival benefit and ventilation duration effects varied, with time-to-event approaches, the Mann-Whitney test, the proportional odds model and the win ratio generally performing best. Similar results were observed in sensitivity analyses. In the real datasets, the multistate model, the Mann-Whitney test, the proportional odds model and the win ratio generally showed a significant association between VFDs and randomisation groups.
conclusionsThe multistate model could be recommended as the optimal approach for analysing VFDs, as it outperformed the other methods and offers a more interpretable effect size than the proportional odds model and the win ratio.
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.