Comparison of ventilatory modes to facilitate liberation from mechanical ventilation: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Clicks: 278
ID: 40633
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #249 of 442 articles by views in BMJ open

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 442 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Timely liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation is important to reduce the risk of ventilator-associated complications. Once a patient is deemed ready to tolerate a mode of partial ventilator assist, clinicians can use one of multiple ventilatory modes. Despite multiple trials, controversy regarding the optimal ventilator mode to facilitate liberation remains. Herein, we report the protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing modes of ventilation to facilitate the liberation of a patient from invasive mechanical ventilation.We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library from inception to April 2019 for randomised trials that report on critically ill adults who have undergone invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours and have received any mode of assisted invasive mechanical ventilation compared with an alternative mode of assisted ventilation. Outcomes of interest will include: mortality, weaning success, weaning duration, duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of stay in the acute care setting and adverse events. Two reviewers will independently screen in two stages, first titles and abstracts, and then full texts, to identify eligible studies. Independently and in duplicate, two investigators will extract all data, and assess risk of bias in all eligible studies using the Modified Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Reviewers will resolve disagreement by discussion and consultation with a third reviewer as necessary. Using a frequentist framework, we will perform random-effect network meta-analysis, including all ventilator modes in the same model. We will calculate direct and indirect estimates of treatment effect using a node-splitting procedure and report effect estimates using OR and 95% CI. We will assess certainty in effect estimates using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology.Research ethics board approval is not necessary. The results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journals.CRD42019137786.
Reference Key
lewis2019comparisonbmj Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Lewis, Kimberley A;Chaudhuri, Dipayan;Guyatt, Gordon;Burns, Karen E A;Bosma, Karen;Ge, Long;Karachi, Tim;Piraino, Thomas;Fernando, Shannon M;Ranganath, Nischal;Brochard, Laurent;Rochwerg, Bram;
Journal BMJ open
Year 2019
DOI
10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030407
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.