SynthesisCritical care science2026
Effect of a short period of invasive mechanical ventilation following a successful spontaneous breathing trial in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Critical care science, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to assess the effect of a short period of invasive mechanical ventilation after a successful spontaneous breathing trial, compared with immediate extubation, on the risk of reintubation within 48 hours.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing a short period of invasive mechanical ventilation following a successful spontaneous breathing trial versus immediate extubation. We searched PubMed®, Cochrane Central, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. Pairs of reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0. The primary outcome was reintubation within 48 hours after randomization. Data were pooled using a Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random-effects model. Trial sequential analysis was performed to determine whether the accumulated evidence was sufficient for definitive conclusions. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Secondary outcomes were reintubation or death within 7 days after extubation, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, in-hospital mortality, and ventilator-free days up to day 28.
resultsOur search identified 1,473 unique records, of which 4 randomized clinical trials (n = 1,071 patients) were eligible. The pooled risk ratio for reintubation within 48 hours in patients receiving a short period of invasive mechanical ventilation after a successful spontaneous breathing trial, compared with immediate extubation, was 0.48 (95% confidence interval 0.22 - 1.07; p = 0.06; I2 = 41.6%). Trial sequential analysis confirmed that the current evidence base is underpowered for definitive conclusions. The evidence was rated as low due to serious inconsistency and imprecision. No significant differences were observed for any of the secondary outcomes.
conclusionsAmong critically ill adults, a short period of invasive mechanical ventilation after a successful spontaneous breathing trial did not significantly reduce the risk of extubation failure within 48 hours compared with immediate extubation (low-certainty evidence). Further adequately powered trials are needed to clarify the clinical efficacy of this intervention.
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.