ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2025
A computer-driven ventilator liberation protocol in pediatric patients: a single-center pilot randomized controlled trial.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: Timely liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is important. We aimed to determine the feasibility of our study protocol for the conduction of a larger prospective trial to examine the utility of a computer-driven liberation protocol in pediatric patients. Design: Single-center pilot randomized controlled trial. Setting: Single, tertiary care, 52-bed, academic pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Patients: Patients aged from 28 days to 18 years undergoing IMV for more than 24 h. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to test and control groups in a ratio of 1:1. The test group underwent ventilator liberation driven by a computerized algorithm combining protocolized screening, air leak testing, and spontaneous breathing testing. The control group underwent ventilator liberation driven by the attending physician according to standard care. Measurements and main results: A total of 40 patients (20 in each group) were randomized. Baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. Durations of IMV were 95.3 h (95%CI, 9.07-181.53) in the test group and 113.3 h (95%CI, 85.90-140.70) in the control group and were similar ( Conclusions: Our pilot study suggests that the conduction of a larger prospective trial of a computer-driven ventilator liberation protocol is feasible in our PICU. And a larger trial is needed to further explore the utility of a computer-driven ventilator liberation protocol. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=168024, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2200060033.
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.