ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
New models to predict survival of patients with difficult ventilator-weaning diagnosed with community-acquired pneumonia.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
Background: High mortality is common in mechanically ventilated patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). This study sought to create prediction models and determine factors for the pneumonia patients under difficult ventilator weaning in a respiratory care center. Methods: In total, 353 CAP and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) patients admitted to a respiratory care center (RCC) from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Mortality and weaning risks factors were collected and analyzed for validating the prediction models. The study focuses primarily on CAP patients, with HAP data used to external validation. Results: Among 270 CAP patients in model testing and validation, CURB-65 (Confusion, Uremia, Respiratory rate, Blood pressure, aged ≥65 years) and CUB-65 similarly predicted RCC survival (AUROCs ~65%). Three new RCC survival prediction models incorporated age ≥65, hypotension, BUN >19 mg/dl, ventilator type (replacing respiratory rate), and GCS ≤ 8 (replacing confusion), and either white blood cells (WBCs) or hemoglobin (Hb) were additionally included in model 1 or model 2. In CAP test samples, AUROCs with CAP test sample were 77.51% (model 1), 75.99% (model 2), and 77.97% (model 3). All three new models showed higher AUROCs than CURB-65, with significantly improved predictability in models 1 ( Conclusions: These new models more accurately predicted survival during RCC admission. Furthermore, they offer clinicians a better predictive tool for survival in CAP patients facing difficult ventilator weaning.
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.