ReviewJournal of intensive care2026
Diagnostic accuracy of tests for assessing readiness for liberation from mechanical ventilation in adults: an overview of reviews.
Review in Journal of intensive care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Predictive value of diaphragmatic ultrasound for weaning outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Liberation from Mechanical Ventilation in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure or Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
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
objectivesTo summarize the evidence on the accuracy of tests evaluating readiness for liberation from mechanical ventilation in the adult population. MATERIALS AND
methodsSearches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL, with additional publications identified through conference proceedings and contact with experts. Systematic reviews (SRs) were independently assessed for inclusion, data extraction, and risk of bias, without language or date restrictions. Included SRs focused on adults diagnosed with ventilatory failure requiring invasive support for more than 24 h. Successful weaning was considered being alive in absence of ventilatory support 72 h following liberation from mechanical ventilation.
resultsTen SRs examining the diagnostic accuracy of 23 readiness tests were included. These tests were conducted before, during, or after spontaneous breathing trials using various methods, such as pressure support, T-piece and continuous positive airway pressure. Among these, lung ultrasound score (sensitivity 0.94, 95% CI 0.59-0.99; specificity 0.87, 95% CI 0.62-0.97), diaphragmatic rapid shallow breathing index (sensitivity 0.84, 95% CI 0.76-0.90; specificity 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.92), venous oxygen saturation (sensitivity 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.90; specificity 0.88, 95% CI 0.83-0.92), and brain natriuretic peptide (sensitivity 0.88, 95% CI 0.83-0.92; specificity 0.82, 95% CI 0.73-0.89), showed high to moderate diagnostic capacity for ruling in and ruling out weaning failure. The remaining tests (e.g., cuff leak test, cough peak flow, P0.1, RSBI, MIP, DE, DTF, DTF-RSBI, EeDT, and EiDT) demonstrated weak diagnostic accuracy. In the SRs, risk of bias ranged from low to high.
conclusionsThe accuracy of tests used to assess readiness for withdrawing ventilatory support in adults varies considerably. Physicians should integrate the results of physiological, ultrasound, and paraclinical measures to minimize uncertainty in deciding which patients should progress toward ventilator weaning, always considering individual patient needs to ensure personalized healthcare.
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.