Mechanical Ventilation Discontinuation Practices in Asia: A Multinational Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale There are limited data on mechanical discontinuation practices in Asia. Objectives To document self-reported mechanical discontinuation practices and determine whether there is clinical equipoise regarding protocolized weaning among Asian Intensive Care specialists. Methods A survey using a validated questionnaire, distributed using a snowball method to Asian Intensive Care specialists. Results Of the 2,967 invited specialists from 20 territories, 2,074 (69.9%) took part. The majority of respondents (60.5%) were from China. Of the respondents, 42% worked in intensive care units (ICUs) where respiratory therapists were present; 78.9% used a spontaneous breathing trial as the initial weaning step; 44.3% frequently/always used pressure support (PS) alone, 53.4% intermittent spontaneous breathing trials with PS in between, and 19.8% synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation with PS as a weaning mode. Of the respondents, 56.3% routinely stopped feeds before extubation, 71.5% generally followed a sedation protocol or guideline, and 61.8% worked in an ICU with a weaning protocol. Of these, 78.2% frequently always followed the protocol. A multivariate analysis involving a modified Poisson regression analysis showed that working in an ICU with a weaning protocol and frequently/always following it was positively associated with an upper–middle-income territory, a university-affiliated hospital, or in an ICU that employed respiratory therapists; and negatively with a low-income or lower–middle-income territory or a public hospital. There was no significant association with “in-house” intensivist at night, multidisciplinary ICU, closed ICU, or nurse–patient ratio. There was heterogeneity in agreement/disagreement with the statement, “evidence clearly supports protocolized weaning over nonprotocolized weaning.” Conclusions A substantial minority of Asian Intensive Care specialists do not wean patients in accordance with the best available evidence or current guidelines. There is clinical equipoise regarding the benefit of protocolized 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".