Cochrane · systematic review · CD008638
Automated weaning and SBT systems versus non‐automated weaning strategies for weaning time in invasively ventilated critically ill adults
Burns, KEA, Lellouche, F, Nisenbaum, R, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2014 · Cochrane Library
Emergency and Critical CareAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
9
current version
GRADE rated
9
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 6 · 66.7%Moderate 3 · 33.3%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Continuous outcomes automated versus non‐automated weaning
Population: patients with weaning time in invasively ventilated critically ill adults
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Weaning time (from randomization to extubation) based on ICU type: purely medical Continuous outcomes automated vs non‐automated weaning | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 38 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Weaning time (from randomization to extubation) based on ICU type: medical‐surgical or surgical only Continuous outcomes automated vs non‐automated weaning | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 457 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Time to successful extubation Continuous outcomes automated vs non‐automated weaning | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 516 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to first successful spontaneous breathing trial Continuous outcomes automated vs non‐automated weaning | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 175 participants | Moderate |
Total duration of mechanical ventilation Continuous outcomes automated vs non‐automated weaning | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 521 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Intensive care unit length of stay (based on type of control arm): predominantly protocolized control strategy Continuous outcomes automated vs non‐automated weaning | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 337 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Intensive care unit length of stay (based on type of control arm): predominantly non‐protocolized control strategy Continuous outcomes automated vs non‐automated weaning | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 162 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Binary outcomes: automated versus non‐automated weaning
Population: patients with weaning time in invasively ventilated critically ill adults
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Most protracted measure of mortality Binary outcomes: automated vs non‐automated weaning | RR 1.15 [0.74, 1.79] | 6 studies · 470 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse event: reintubation Binary outcomes: automated vs non‐automated weaning | RR 0.88 [0.64, 1.22] | 6 studies · 491 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |