ArticleFrontiers in neurology
Establishment and evaluation of a predictive scoring system for successful decannulation of tracheostomy in neurosurgery patients.
Article in Frontiers in neurology. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To establish and evaluate a predictive scoring system for successful decannulation of tracheostomy in neurosurgery patients. Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted. Patients undergoing tracheostomy in the neurosurgery departments of two tertiary hospitals in Sichuan Province were enrolled and divided into training and validation sets based on admission time. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictive factors for successful decannulation, and a scoring system was developed based on the regression coefficients. Model performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration plots, and decision curve analysis. Temporal validation was performed using a later time cohort from the same institutions. Results: A total of 216 patients were included, with an overall decannulation success rate of 63.9%. Independent predictive factors included supratentorial lesion location (OR 8.05, 95% CI 1.87-34.72), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) >8 at decannulation (OR 21.21, 95% CI 4.89-92.04), < 6 airway suctioning episodes/24 h (OR 13.13, 95% CI 3.31-52.09), capping trial ≥24 h (OR 6.28, 95% CI 1.62-24.43), and serum albumin (Alb) ≥35 g/L (OR 4.71, 95% CI 1.43-15.51). The scoring system (0-15 points) achieved an AUC of 0.933 (95% CI: 0.888-0.978) in the training set and 0.930 (95% CI: 0.868-0.993) in the validation set. A cut-off of ≥10 points yielded a sensitivity of 91.9% and specificity of 84.3%. Conclusion: The predictive scoring system is scientifically valid and clinically practical, providing a simple tool to assist in decannulation decision-making and timing optimization in neurosurgical patients.
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.