MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W94829216 · doi:10.1177/002013240104601205

Weaning from Mechanical ventilation: The Evidence from Clinical Research

2001· article· en· W94829216 on OpenAlexaff
M Meade, Gordon Guyatt, Richard J. Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiratory Care · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWeaningSpontaneous breathing trialMechanical ventilationDiscontinuationPressure support ventilationIntensive care medicinePsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialClinical trialVentilation (architecture)Emergency medicineAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mechanical ventilation incurs substantial morbidity, mortality, and costs. Both premature extubation and delayed extubation can cause harm. Therefore, weaning that is both expeditious and safe is highly desirable. The purpose of this review is to summarize the literature related to weaning modes, spontaneous breathing trials, weaning predictors, weaning with noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, and weaning protocols. We used 5 computerized databases and a duplicate independent review process to select articles for this review. We included randomized clinical trials evaluating any weaning interventions and nonrandomized trials of weaning predictors, with a focus on studies reporting clinically important outcomes. We abstracted quantitative data using several metrics and pooled results across studies only when our assessment of the patients, interventions, and outcomes indicated that pooling was legitimate. The available clinical research evidence suggests that, for progressive weaning of the level of mechanical support, it may be best to choose modes other than synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation and it is unreasonable to be dogmatic about the use of other modes. There may also be substantial benefits to early extubation with back-up institution of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, as needed, though this remains an experimental approach. For trials of spontaneous breathing, low levels of pressure support may hasten extubation. We did not uncover any consistently powerful weaning predictors, suggesting that formal use of predictors in patients being considered for reduction or discontinuation of mechanical support is unlikely to improve patient care. The likely explanation is that clinicians already fully consider information from weaning predictors in choosing patients for trials of reduction or discontinuation of mechanical ventilation. Finally, implementation of respiratory therapist- or nurse-driven protocols may be useful for all phases of weaning, and clinicians should adopt daily assessment for a trial of unassisted breathing as a safe method to reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.636
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.053 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespiratory CareSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207