Cited by 9Respiratory Support and MechanismsNosocomial Infections in ICUAirway Management and Intubation Techniques

Extubation outcome after a successful spontaneous breathing trial: A multicenter validation of a 3-factor prediction model

Open access
LIU, YANG, MU, YU, LI, GUO-QIANG, YU, XIN, LI, PEI-JUN, SHEN, ZHI-QI, WANG, HAO-XUN, WEI, LU-QING·2015·Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to validate, and if necessary update, a predictive model previously developed using a classification and regression tree (CART) algorithm for predicting successful extubation (ES) using a new cohort. This prospective cohort study enrolled adults admitted to 10 intensive care units, who had successfully passed a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) and were considered ready for extubation. After extubation, the patients were followed up for 48 h. The primary outcome measure was ES, defined as the ability to maintain spontaneous unassisted breathing for >48 h after extubation. The 3-factor CART model was applied to patients in this cohort. The predicted probability of ES for each patient in this validation cohort was calculated based on the original CART model using the Laplace correction method. The performance was assessed by discrimination and calibration. A decision curve analysis was used assess the clinical net benefit (NB). Extubation failure (EF) occurred in 90/530 patients (17%). Among the 90 patients, 72 (13.6%) were reintubated, while 18 patients remained on rescue noninvasive ventilation within 48 h after extubation. The original CART model showed high discrimination but only moderate calibration with predicted probabilities that were systematically lower than expected. The original CART model was updated, and the updated model preserved excellent discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.87 to 0.93), but exhibited near-perfect calibration (calibration slope, 1; intercept, 0). Between threshold probabilities of 50 and 80%, the NB of using this updated model is significantly improved compared with the current strategy. The updated CART model may be used to estimate the predicted probability of ES after a successful SBT for individual patients. Applying this model appears to produce a substantial clinical consequence with regard to potential reduction in unexpected EFs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3892/etm.2015.2678

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
LIU, Y., MU, Y., LI, G.-Q., YU, X., LI, P.-J., SHEN, Z.-Q., WANG, H.-X., & WEI, L.-Q.
Affiliations
  • Logistics University of People's Armed Police Force (CN)
  • Tianjin Chest Hospital (CN)
  • Chinese People's Armed Police General Hospital (CN)
  • Tibet University (CN)
Venue
Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine
Published
2015-08-12
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
1591-1601
ISSN
  • 1792-0981 (ISSN-L)
  • 1792-1015
OpenAlex
W2108033922
Cited by
8
References
44
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Nosocomial Infections in ICU
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Airway Management and Intubation Techniques
Keywords
extubation outcome, spontaneous breathing trial, extubation failure, prediction model validation, classification and regression trees, intensive care unit patients, reintubation, net clinical benefit, model calibration

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review