ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2026
Preferences for mechanical ventilation modes among intensivists in Türkiye: a nationwide point-prevalence study.
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 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
58 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is a fundamental intervention for patients with respiratory failure in intensive care units (ICUs). This nationwide, multicenter point-prevalence study aimed to describe current mechanical ventilation mode preferences (conventional, adaptive, and biphasic) in Turkish ICUs and to report associated clinical outcomes descriptively, without assessing causal relationships. Materials and methods: A nationwide, multicenter point-prevalence study was conducted on 17 April 2024 and included adult patients (≥18 years) who had been receiving IMV for more than 24 h. Data on patient demographics, ventilation mode distribution, ventilatory parameters, and descriptive clinical outcomes on day 28 (weaning status, tracheostomy, and mortality) were recorded without comparative outcome analysis. Results: A total of 426 patients were included. Conventional modes were used in 84.5% of patients, adaptive modes in 10.6%, and biphasic modes in 4.9%. Synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) was the most commonly used conventional mode. The primary indication for IMV was acute respiratory failure (61%), with pneumonia being the leading cause. Among the 350 orotracheally intubated patients, 25.6% were in the weaning phase on the study day. A total of 59 (16.9%) patients were extubated, 150 (42.9%) underwent tracheostomy, and 64 (18.2%) remained intubated on day 28. Overall, 185 (43.4%) patients died during their ICU stay, 152 (35.7%) remained in the ICU, and 89 (20.9%) were successfully discharged from the ICU. Conclusion: Conventional ventilation modes, particularly SIMV, were more commonly used in Turkish intensive care units (ICUs), whereas adaptive modes were less frequently applied. These patterns may reflect factors such as clinician familiarity, institutional practices, and equipment availability rather than definitive preferences. Although the impact of ventilation modes on clinical outcomes was not comparatively evaluated in this study, the choice of ventilation mode may still influence patient outcomes. Therefore, further prospective and comparative studies are warranted to better elucidate this relationship.
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.