ReviewJournal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care2026
Proportional assist ventilation versus pressure support ventilation for weaning from mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care, 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWeaning from mechanical ventilation (MV) is an important step for lowering the risk of ventilator-related complications. Currently, pressure support ventilation (PSV) remains the most common weaning mode, whereas proportional assist ventilation (PAV/PAV +) has been proposed as an alternative with better weaning outcomes. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of PAV/PAV + and PSV in adult patients who were weaning from invasive MV.
methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PAV/PAV + with PSV were identified through major databases up to September 2025. The primary outcomes were weaning success and the reintubation rate; the secondary outcomes included mortality, duration of weaning, and duration of MV. We analyzed the outcomes via RevMan 5.4, with the risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) as the effect measures.
resultsSeven RCTs encompassing 1,059 patients were included. The rates of weaning success were comparable between PAV/PAV + and PSV (RR 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.16). PAV/PAV + was associated with a significantly lower risk of reintubation (RR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42-0.97). There were no significant differences in mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.72-1.25), duration of weaning (MD 5.59 h; 95% CI, - 12.56 to 23.74), or total ventilation duration (MD - 8.21 h; 95% CI, - 74.96 to 58.55).
conclusionsWe found no significant difference between PAV/PAV + and PSV regarding weaning success, mortality, duration of weaning, or duration of MV. PAV/PAV +, on the other hand, was linked to a decreased rate of reintubation, suggesting a potential benefit in critically ill patients. However, the lack of high-quality evidence precludes any strong conclusions until further large-scale studies confirm these results.
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.