ArticleJournal of intensive care2025
Clinical utility of diaphragmatic ultrasound for mechanical ventilator liberation in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of intensive care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Respiratory muscle dysfunction in mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of biological mechanisms.Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985) · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProlonged mechanical ventilation is associated with an increased incidence of complications and higher mortality rates. Therefore, it is crucial to wean patients from mechanical ventilation as soon as possible. Recently, diaphragmatic ultrasound has been used in this decision-making process. This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of diaphragmatic ultrasound to improve ventilator liberation outcomes.
methodsWe searched three databases - MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included randomized control trials that compared the use of diaphragmatic ultrasound to standard care in adult patients on mechanical ventilation via tracheal intubation. We assessed risk of bias for included trials with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes, we reported mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs if all retrieved records provide data on the same scale. The primary outcome was incidence of reintubation within 48 h of extubation and the secondary outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, incidence of reintubation rate after 48 h, ICU length of stay, and adverse events.
resultsWe found five relevant randomized controlled trials involving a total of 508 participants on mechanical ventilation in ICU following respiratory failure or surgery. Three studies (268 participants) provided data on the incidence of reintubation within 48 h of extubation. Using diaphragmatic ultrasound to guide extubation decisions led to a significant reduction in the risk of reintubation within 48 h (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.95, low certainty of evidence). No significant differences were found in the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD - 1.39 h, 95% CI - 17.5 to 14.71 h, three studies, 268 participants, very low certainty of evidence) or reintubation after 48 h (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.11-1.29, two studies, 240 participants, moderate certainty of evidence). However, ICU length of stay was significantly reduced in the diaphragmatic ultrasound group (MD - 1.0 days, 95% CI - 1.74 to - 0.26 days, one study, 130 participants, low certainty of evidence).
conclusionUsing diaphragmatic ultrasound in addition to standard clinical criteria to guide decisions around ventilator use and liberation resulted in a reduced risk of reintubation within 48 h of extubation when compared to standard clinical criteria alone. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered with the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/cn8xf .
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.