Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Comparison 1 noninvasive versus invasive weaning, Outcome 1 mortality.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 noninvasive versus invasive weaning, Outcome 1 mortality.

Comparison 2 noninvasive versus invasive weaning, Outcome 1 weaning failure.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 noninvasive versus invasive weaning, Outcome 1 weaning failure.

Comparison 3 noninvasive versus invasive weaning, Outcome 1 nosocomial pneumonia.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 noninvasive versus invasive weaning, Outcome 1 nosocomial pneumonia.

Comparison 4 noninvasive versus invasive weaning, Outcome 1 LOS ICU.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 noninvasive versus invasive weaning, Outcome 1 LOS ICU.

Comparison 5 noninvasive versus invasive weaning, Outcome 1 LOS hospital.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 noninvasive versus invasive weaning, Outcome 1 LOS hospital.

Comparison 6 noninvasive versus invasive weaning, Outcome 1 average total duration of mechanical ventilatory support.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 noninvasive versus invasive weaning, Outcome 1 average total duration of mechanical ventilatory support.

Comparison 7 noninvasive versus invasive weaning, Outcome 1 average duration of ventilation related to weaning.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 noninvasive versus invasive weaning, Outcome 1 average duration of ventilation related to weaning.

Comparison 8 noninvasive versus invasive weaning, Outcome 1 duration of endotracheal mechanical ventilation.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 noninvasive versus invasive weaning, Outcome 1 duration of endotracheal mechanical ventilation.

Comparison 9 sensitivity analysis: excluding quasi‐randomized study, Outcome 1 mortality.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.1

Comparison 9 sensitivity analysis: excluding quasi‐randomized study, Outcome 1 mortality.

Comparison 9 sensitivity analysis: excluding quasi‐randomized study, Outcome 2 nosocomial pneumonia.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.2

Comparison 9 sensitivity analysis: excluding quasi‐randomized study, Outcome 2 nosocomial pneumonia.

Table 1. Comparison of NPPV and IPPV weaning strategies on outcomes

Outcome

Number of trials

Number of patients

Test of homogeneity

Summary estimate

Significance

Mortality

5

171

p=0.83

RR 0.41 [0.22, 0.76]

p=0.005

VAP

4

150

p=0.27

RR 0.28 [0.09, 0.85]

p=0.03

Weaning failure

3

104

p=0.20

RR 0.82 [0.29, 2.32]

p=0.71

ICU LOS

3

126

p=0.05

WMD ‐6.88 [‐12.60, ‐1.15]

p=0.02

Hospital LOS

3

100

p=0.20

WMD ‐7.33 [‐14.05, ‐0.61]

p=0.03

Total duration MV

2

93

p=0.59

WMD ‐7.33 [‐11.45, ‐3.22]

p=0.0005

Duration related to weaning

3

92

p<0.00001

WMD ‐2.72 [‐15.58, 10.14)

p=0.68

Duration ETMV

3

97

p=0.08

WMD ‐6.32 [‐12.12, ‐0.52]

p=0.03

Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Comparison of NPPV and IPPV weaning strategies on outcomes
Comparison 1. noninvasive versus invasive weaning

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 mortality Show forest plot

5

171

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.41 [0.22, 0.76]

1.1 COPD

2

74

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.25 [0.07, 0.91]

1.2 mixed

3

97

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.23, 0.96]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. noninvasive versus invasive weaning
Comparison 2. noninvasive versus invasive weaning

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 weaning failure Show forest plot

3

104

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.29, 2.32]

1.1 COPD

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.11, 1.25]

1.2 mixed

2

54

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.28 [0.45, 3.60]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. noninvasive versus invasive weaning
Comparison 3. noninvasive versus invasive weaning

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 nosocomial pneumonia Show forest plot

4

150

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.09, 0.85]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 3. noninvasive versus invasive weaning
Comparison 4. noninvasive versus invasive weaning

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 LOS ICU Show forest plot

3

126

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐6.88 [‐12.60, ‐1.15]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 4. noninvasive versus invasive weaning
Comparison 5. noninvasive versus invasive weaning

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 LOS hospital Show forest plot

3

100

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐7.33 [‐14.05, ‐0.61]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 5. noninvasive versus invasive weaning
Comparison 6. noninvasive versus invasive weaning

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 average total duration of mechanical ventilatory support Show forest plot

2

93

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐7.33 [‐11.45, ‐3.22]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 6. noninvasive versus invasive weaning
Comparison 7. noninvasive versus invasive weaning

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 average duration of ventilation related to weaning Show forest plot

3

92

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.72 [‐15.58, 10.14]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 7. noninvasive versus invasive weaning
Comparison 8. noninvasive versus invasive weaning

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 duration of endotracheal mechanical ventilation Show forest plot

3

97

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐6.32 [‐12.12, ‐0.52]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 8. noninvasive versus invasive weaning
Comparison 9. sensitivity analysis: excluding quasi‐randomized study

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 mortality Show forest plot

4

147

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.43 [0.23, 0.81]

2 nosocomial pneumonia Show forest plot

3

126

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.37 [0.15, 0.93]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 9. sensitivity analysis: excluding quasi‐randomized study