ArticleJournal of intensive medicine2026
Reliability of airway occlusion pressure (P0.1) in predicting extubation failure in critically ill patients.
Article in Journal of intensive medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05802745 (Airway Occlusion Pressure), which is not on this 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.
Airway Occlusion Pressure (P0.1) to Predict Extubation Failure in Critically Ill Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study
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
44 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The airway occlusion pressure (P0.1) reflects the central respiratory drive and correlates with patients' inspiratory effort. This study aimed to assess whether changes in P0.1 (ΔP0.1) during the spontaneous breathing trial (SBT), as well as SBT-induced changes in the products of P0.1 and the rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI) (Δ(P0.1 × RSBI)) and P0.1 and respiratory rate ((Δ(P0.1 × RR)), can predict extubation failure (EF) in critically ill patients. Methods: In this bicentric prospective study, we enrolled 114 intensive care unit (ICU) patients who had been mechanically ventilated for more than 48 h and successfully tolerated a 30-min SBT on pressure support ventilation. Respiratory variables, including P0.1 and RSBI, as well as hemodynamic parameters, were recorded within 5 min of SBT initiation and at its completion. EF was defined as the need for reintubation and resumption of mechanical ventilation within 7 days. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were calculated for both relative and absolute ΔP0.1, Δ(P0.1×RSBI), and Δ(P0.1×RR). Results: Among the 114 patients, 23 (20.2%) experienced EF. At baseline, P0.1, P0.1×RR, and P0.1×RSBI values did not differ significantly between the success and failure groups. During the SBT, P0.1, P0.1×RR, and P0.1 × RSBI increased significantly in the failure group, while remaining unchanged in the success group. Absolute ΔP0.1 demonstrated poor predictive performance for EF, with AUC of 0.69 ( Conclusions: Variations in P0.1 and in the combined parameters P0.1×RSBI and P0.1×RR during the SBT provided limited value for predicting EF in critically ill patients. Trial Registreration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05802745.
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.