Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41357524›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025

Risk prediction models for extubation failure in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation: a systematic review.

Xiang Zeng, Xiao Juan Chen, Ping Lai, Jie Chen, Zhoujing Chen, Xiyu Qi

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Xiang Zeng *Chongqing JiangJin District Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Chongqing, China.
Xiao Juan Chen *Chongqing JiangJin District Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Chongqing, China.
Ping LaiChongqing JiangJin District Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Chongqing, China.
Jie ChenChongqing JiangJin District Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Chongqing, China.
Zhoujing ChenChongqing JiangJin District Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Chongqing, China.
Xiyu QiChongqing JiangJin District Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Chongqing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Failure to extubate successfully from mechanical ventilation is a critical event associated with poor prognosis in ICU patients, significantly prolonging hospital stays and increasing mortality rates. It is widely accepted in academic circles that developing prediction models for extubation failure can facilitate precise extubation decisions. Despite the rapid proliferation of relevant prediction models, their methodological quality and bedside applicability remain ambiguous. Objective: This study aims to outline the predictive factors associated with the risk of extubation failure in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and to summarize the existing predictive models. Methods: We searched the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, VIP Database, China Biomedical Database, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. We included both prospective and retrospective studies that developed or validated risk prediction models for extubation failure in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in the ICU. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to assess the bias and applicability of the models. Results: This analysis includes 14 studies. Frequency analysis of the predictors revealed that there are 15 predictors that appeared at least twice, among which mechanical ventilation duration, GCS score, APACHE II score, age, and hemoglobin were the most common predictors. From the perspective of the models, only 2 studies conducted both internal and external validation, 3 studies ultimately employed machine learning, while 11 studies utilized traditional modeling methods. However, we found that many studies faced issues such as insufficient sample sizes, missing crucial methodological information, and all models being rated as having a high risk of bias. Conclusion: Most published predictive models lack methodological rigor, leading to a heightened risk of bias. Future research should prioritize the enhancement of methodological rigor and the external validation of risk prediction models for extubation failure in ICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Additionally, it is essential to emphasize adherence to scientific methods and transparent reporting to improve the accuracy and generalizability of research findings. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/recorddashboard, Registration number:CRD420251124371.

Indexed as

extubation failureIntensive Care Unitmechanical ventilationrisk prediction modelsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41357524
PMCPMC12675440

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.