Respiratory failure & ventilation
Accuracy of respiratory muscle assessments to predict weaning outcomes: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis
Authors' conclusion
DTF and DE are superior to PImax and DTF seems to have the highest accuracy among all included respiratory muscle assessments for predicting weaning success.
Study context
- Population
- Adult mechanically ventilated ICU patients
- Participants
- 6,296 participants · 88 studies
- Comparison
- Respiratory muscle assessments for predicting weaning success
- Outcome
- Accuracy to predict weaning success (sensitivity at fixed 80% specificity)
Methodological detailshierarchical summary ROC models, meta-regression, sensitivity analyses excluding high risk of bias studies (QUADAS-2), direct comparisons
- Hierarchical summary ROC models
- Meta-regression
- Sensitivity analyses excluding high risk of bias studies (QUADAS-2)
- Direct comparisons
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Sensitivity to predict weaning success at fixed 80% specificity
| Group | Sensitivity |
|---|---|
| PImax | 63% (95% CI 47-77%)Sensitivity on a scale from 0 to 100 percent |
| DE | 75% (95% CI 67-82%)Sensitivity on a scale from 0 to 100 percent |
| DTF | 77% (95% CI 61-87%)Sensitivity on a scale from 0 to 100 percent |
| P0.1 | 74% (95% CI 40-93%)Sensitivity on a scale from 0 to 100 percent |
| Tdiei | 69% (95% CI 13-97%)Sensitivity on a scale from 0 to 100 percent |
| Tdiee | 37% (95% CI 13-70%)Sensitivity on a scale from 0 to 100 percent |
Sensitivity
PImax63% (95% CI 47-77%)
DE75% (95% CI 67-82%)
DTF77% (95% CI 61-87%)
P0.174% (95% CI 40-93%)
Tdiei69% (95% CI 13-97%)
Tdiee37% (95% CI 13-70%)
Sensitivity on a scale from 0 to 100 percent- DE vs PImax: P = 0.04 — significantly higher accuracy
- DTF vs PImax: P < 0.01 — significantly higher accuracy
Further pooled results
| Outcome | P value |
|---|---|
| Accuracy, DTF vs DE (sensitivity and direct comparisons analyses)Significantly higher accuracy | P < 0.01 |
Original publication
Accuracy of respiratory muscle assessments to predict weaning outcomes: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis. Crit Care. Published 7 March 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →