SynthesisScientific reports2025
Comparative effects of respiratory stimulants in mechanically ventilated patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 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
Mechanical ventilation (MV) is a cornerstone of supportive care in intensive care units (ICUs), but prolonged ventilation is associated with adverse outcomes. Several pharmacologic agents with respiratory stimulants have been investigated to facilitate weaning and improve clinical outcomes; yet no comprehensive comparison across available agents exists. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare and rank available interventions in adult patients receiving MV. A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus (up to November 10, 2023) identified 15 randomized controlled trials (1,528 participants) evaluating ten respiratory stimulants in mechanically ventilated critically ill adults: Almitrine Bismesylate (AB), Doxofylline (DX), Progesterone (PRG), Acetazolamide (ACZT), Growth Hormone (GH), Oxandrolone (OXA), Nandrolone (NA), Caffeine (CAF), Donepezil (DPZ), and a multi-agent adjuvant therapeutic (AT) regimen containing anisodamine. Data were analyzed using a frequentist network meta-analysis with treatment rankings based on SUCRA values. Risk of bias was assessed using the modified Cochrane RoB 2 tool. No pharmacologic intervention significantly reduced hospital or ICU mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, or time to successful weaning compared with placebo. According to SUCRA rankings, NA, OXA, and PRG had the highest probabilities of reducing hospital mortality, with NA also associated with shorter ICU and hospital stays. DPZ and PRG significantly shortened weaning duration, while GH showed the greatest reduction in mechanical ventilation duration. GH, PRG, and DPZ had the highest likelihood of successful weaning. Heterogeneity and inconsistency were generally low, except for the duration of mechanical ventilation (I² = 86.2%, p < 0.001). No pharmacologic intervention significantly reduced hospital mortality. However, agents such as NA, GH, and DPZ may help shorten ICU stay, reduce duration of mechanical ventilation, or improve weaning efficiency. These findings underscore the potential value of multi-agent adjuvant approaches and highlight the need for larger, high-quality trials to confirm their clinical benefits.Trial registration: CRD42023454122 (18/10/2023).
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.