ReviewAnnals of intensive care2026
Prediction of noninvasive ventilation failure: a narrative review.
Review in Annals of intensive care, 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
With the increasing clinical application of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and the accumulation of evidence-based medical data, NIV has become an important therapeutic intervention for various types of respiratory failure. However, a subset of patients still experience NIV failure. Compared with those with successful NIV, patients who develop NIV failure tend to have a poorer prognosis and an elevated risk of mortality. Therefore, the accurate identification and early prediction of NIV failure risk are crucial for guiding clinical decision-making and optimizing treatment strategies. This article reviews recent advances in research on the risk prediction of NIV failure, covering single-variable prediction approaches, simple variable combination-based prediction, weight-based multivariable prediction models, and emerging artificial intelligence algorithm-driven prediction models. Despite the progress made in NIV failure prediction, existing models still have limitations, such as insufficient generalizability, complex calculation of some multivariable scoring systems, and poor interpretability of artificial intelligence (AI) models. The core contribution of this review is to systematically sort out the advantages and limitations of various prediction methods, integrate prediction indicators and models suitable for different patient populations, and provide practical guidance for clinical practice and direction for future research.
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.