SynthesisIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Ventilator-derived
Synthesis in In vivo (Athens, Greece). 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimThe rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI) is widely used to assess readiness for liberation from mechanical ventilation. With advances in ventilator technology, RSBI is increasingly obtained directly from ventilator displays. However, differences in measurement conditions and ventilator settings may influence RSBI values and their clinical interpretation, particularly in relation to established cutoff thresholds. This systematic review aimed to evaluate differences between ventilator-derived and conventional RSBI measurements and their clinical implications. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Ovid for studies published up to February 24, 2026. Studies were included if they compared ventilator-derived RSBI with standard measurements in mechanically ventilated adult patients. Data on study design, measurement strategies, and outcomes were extracted and qualitatively synthesized.
resultsA total of 11 prospective studies involving 824 patients were included. Most studies reported lower RSBI values under ventilatory support, particularly with pressure support ventilation (PSV) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), compared with measurements obtained during unsupported spontaneous breathing. However, some studies reported higher or variable RSBI values depending on ventilator algorithms and measurement techniques. Despite these differences, moderate to good correlations were observed between ventilator-derived and conventional RSBI measurements. Additional factors, including trigger sensitivity and base flow, were found to influence RSBI values, whereas changes in FiO
conclusionVentilator-derived RSBI provides a practical alternative for assessing weaning readiness, but values may differ from conventional measurements depending on ventilatory support and measurement conditions. The traditional cutoff of 105 breaths/min/l remains appropriate for unsupported breathing, whereas lower thresholds may be required when RSBI is obtained from ventilators. Careful interpretation is necessary, and further studies are needed to establish standardized measurement approaches and optimal cutoff values.
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.