Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40762763›Full record

ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2025

Comparative evaluation of spontaneous breathing trial techniques for ventilator weaning: a bench study.

Guillaume Fossat, Roberto Martínez Alejos, Emeline Fresnel, Mai-Anh Nay, Clément Medrinal, Marius Lebret

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Guillaume FossatUniv Rouen Normandie, GRHVN UR3830, Institute for Research and Innovation in Biomedicine (IRIB), 76000, Rouen, France. guillaume.fossat@chu-orleans.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4879-1484
Roberto Martínez AlejosKernel Biomedical, 18 Rue Marie Curie Bâtiment ANIDER, 76000, Rouen, France.
Emeline FresnelKernel Biomedical, 18 Rue Marie Curie Bâtiment ANIDER, 76000, Rouen, France.
Mai-Anh NayIntensive Care Unit Department, ORLEANS University Hospital, 45067, Orléans, France.
Clément MedrinalUniv Rouen Normandie, GRHVN UR3830, Institute for Research and Innovation in Biomedicine (IRIB), 76000, Rouen, France.
Marius LebretKernel Biomedical, 18 Rue Marie Curie Bâtiment ANIDER, 76000, Rouen, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpontaneous breathing trials (SBT) are crucial for determining when mechanically ventilated patients are ready for extubation. While pressure support (PS) and T-piece trials are commonly used, humidified high-flow (HHF) is increasingly considered, but its physiological effects remain unclear. This bench study compares T-piece, PS, and HHF modalities, evaluating their impact on work of breathing (WOB), tidal volume (Vt), total positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEPtot) and CO

methodsA 3D-printed manikin head connected to an artificial lung was used. Four SBT modalities were tested: T-piece with and without supplemental oxygen, PS at 7 cmH

resultsT-piece and HHF50 SBTs exhibited similar effects on WOB, irrespective of the effort pattern associated with the underlying respiratory mechanics. For intense effort patterns, the CO

conclusionsHumidified high-flow at 50 L/min, while preserving WOB and not increasing tidal volume, may offer specific advantages, such as improved CO

Indexed as

Dead space washoutHigh flowICUSpontaneous breathing trialWeaningWork of breathing

Identifiers

PMID40762763
PMCPMC12325126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.