International Practice Variation in Weaning Critically Ill Adults from Invasive Mechanical Ventilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Randomized trials and meta-analyses have informed several aspects of weaning. Results are rarely replicated in practice, as evidence is applied in intensive care units that differ from the settings in which it was generated. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to: 1) describe weaning practice variation (identifying weaning candidates, conducting spontaneous breathing trials, using ventilator modes, and other aspects of care during weaning); 2) characterize regional differences in weaning practices; and 3) identify factors associated with practice variation. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, self-administered, international postal survey of adult intensivist members of regional critical care societies from six geographic regions, including Canada, India, the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia/New Zealand, and the United States. We worked with societies to randomly select potential respondents from membership lists and administer questionnaires with the goal of obtaining 200 responses per region. RESULTS: We analyzed 1,144 questionnaires (Canada, 156; India, 136; United Kingdom, 219; Europe, 260; Australia/New Zealand, 196; United States, 177). Across regions, most respondents screened patients once daily to identify spontaneous breathing trials candidates (regional range, 70.0%-95.6%) and less often screened twice daily (range, 12.2%-33.1%) or more than twice daily (range, 1.6%-18.2%). To wean patients, most respondents used pressure support alone (range, 31.0%-71.7%) or with spontaneous breathing trials (range, 35.7%-68.1%). To conduct spontaneous breathing trials, respondents predominantly used pressure support with positive end-expiratory pressure (range, 56.5%-72.3%) and T-piece (8.9%-59.5%). Across regions, we found important variation in screening frequency, spontaneous breathing trials techniques; ventilator modes, written directives to guide care, noninvasive ventilation; and the roles played by available personnel in various aspects of weaning. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings document the presence and extent of practice variation in ventilator weaning on an international scale, and highlight the multidisciplinary and collaborative nature of weaning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.088 | 0.202 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".