ArticleCureus2026
Patient Perspectives on Repeat Intubation Following Mechanical Ventilation: A Pilot Retrospective Survey Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
Mechanical ventilation is a common life-saving intervention in critically ill patients; however, little literature exists examining how prior intubation experiences influence future patient preferences regarding repeat intubation or Do Not Intubate (DNI) status. This pilot study evaluated patient perceptions following mechanical ventilation and assessed willingness to undergo repeat intubation if medically necessary. We conducted a pilot observational survey study of adult patients previously hospitalized at a community teaching hospital who underwent mechanical ventilation identified through intubation/extubation order sets. Participants completed a structured survey evaluating awareness of intubation, understanding of the indication for intubation, recollection of the experience, perceived pain and discomfort, adequacy of sedation and pain control, and willingness to undergo repeat intubation. Responses regarding prior consideration of DNI status and post-hospitalization code-status preferences were also collected. Twenty-seven patients completed the survey. Most participants were aware they had been intubated (81.5%), and 74.1% reported understanding why intubation was required. Intubation was described as painful by 29.6% of participants and uncomfortable by 55.6%. While 70.4% felt adequately sedated and 74.1% felt their pain was adequately controlled, recollection of the mechanical ventilation experience varied: 44.4% remembered none of their time intubated, 33.3% remembered some, 14.8% remembered most, and 7.4% remembered all of the experience. When asked whether they would agree to repeat intubation if medically necessary, 77.8% responded yes, while 11.1% responded no, 7.4% responded maybe, and 3.7% remained undecided. Prior to hospitalization, only 22.2% had previously considered or discussed DNI status. Following their hospitalization, 11.1% expressed interest in becoming Do Not Resuscitate (DNR), while 7.4% remained uncertain. Family influence on DNI-related decision-making was reported by 42.9% of respondents.
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.