Trial reportCritical care (London, England)2025
Effect of noninvasive ventilation on tracheal reintubation among patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure following abdominal surgery: a bayesian post-hoc analysis of the NIVAS trial.
Trial report in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From physiological innovation to clinical precision: defining the right target for diaphragm neurostimulation.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Is postoperative ARDS different from medical ARDS?Critical care (London, England) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinicians’ decision-making regarding the use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) after abdominal surgery requires evaluating the probability of a clinically meaningful benefit. The Bayesian framework may help caregivers interpret the findings of a randomized controlled trial (NIVAS) assessing curative NIV after abdominal surgery by incorporating their prior beliefs, yielding more precise estimates of treatment effects. This study aimed to use a Bayesian framework to estimate posterior probabilities of NIV effect under various prior assumptions, reflecting diverse clinicians’ beliefs.
methodA prospectively registered, post-hoc Bayesian reanalysis of the NIVAS multicenter trial was conducted. The study included 293 patients with acute respiratory failure following abdominal surgery who were randomly assigned to receive either conventional oxygen therapy or NIV. Four statistical priors were defined: minimally informative, skeptical, enthusiastic, and pessimistic, reflecting a range of clinical beliefs. The primary outcome was day-7 reintubation. Secondary outcomes included day-30 mortality. Effect sizes were presented as odds ratios (OR) and absolute risk reduction (ARR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI).
resultsThe minimally informative prior resulted in a posterior median OR for day-7 reintubation of 0.59 (95% CrI 0.37 to 0.95) in favor of NIV. Under the pessimistic prior, the posterior median OR was 0.64 (95% CrI 0.40 to 1.00). The posterior probability that NIV is superior to oxygen therapy varied from 96 to 99% across various priors, from pessimistic to enthusiastic. The probability of benefit beyond an ARR ≥ 5% ranged from 77 to 93%. Regarding day-30 mortality, the posterior median OR was 0.63 (95% CrI 0.32 to 1.31) under minimally informative prior and 0.79 (95% CrI 0.48 to 1.29) under the skeptical prior. The probability of NIV superiority ranged from 82 to 90%.
conclusionThis Bayesian trial re-analysis indicates that NIV has a high probability of achieving a clinically meaningful reduction in day 7 reintubation, even under pessimistic prior beliefs. These results suggest that use of NIV to treat respiratory failure after abdominal surgery is reasonable.
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.