SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Risk prediction models for prolonged mechanical ventilation following coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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.
- Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation and In-Hospital Mortality Following Open-Heart Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Cardiology research · 2026Article
- Comment on "Early versus delayed postoperative extubation after elective neurosurgical treatment of brain metastasis".Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Nurse-Led Large Language Model Chatbot for Predicting and Preventing Complications After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Prolonged mechanical ventilation (PMV) results in significant morbidity, mortality, and associated hospital costs. Models predicting PMV following Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery were growing. However, the reliability, validity and clinical applicability of these models remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to provide a comprehensive quality assessment of PMV-risk prediction models for patients after CABG. Methods: Nine relevant domestic and international databases were systematically searched from inception until November 4, 2024 using PICOTS format. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) checklist was employed to evaluate the risk of bias and applicability of each study. A meta-analysis of the area under the curve (AUC) values from model external validations was conducted using R software. Results: Fifteen studies detailing 12 PMV-risk prediction models were included, with AUC values ranging from 0.561 to 0. 875. In the meta-analysis, the pooled AUC was 0.696 (95% CI: 0.553, 0.839, I-squared = 90.4%) for externally validated studies of three Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) models. The most frequently used predictors in the models were grouped into demographics, medical history, examination, and supportive therapy. Conclusions: Although studies were judged as high overall risk of bias according to PROBAST guidelines evidence from our review indicates that risk factors of PMV in Post CABG Patients include age, BMI, history of cardiac surgery, history of cardiovascular disease, COPD, EF/LVEF, IABP, and cardiopulmonary bypass. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42024608639.
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.