Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of findings in the eight studies focused on patient–ventilator asynchrony in ventilated patients in Part A

From: Patient–ventilator asynchrony, impact on clinical outcomes and effectiveness of interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of study design
Patients or study population: adult patients requiring mechanical ventilation in the ICU
Exposure: high patient–ventilator asynchrony
Comparison: low patient–ventilator asynchrony
Outcome Illustrative comparative risksd (95% CI) Relative effect (95% CI) No. of participants (studies) Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) Comments
Assumed risk Corresponding risk
Control Intervention
Duration of mechanical ventilation (days) Study population 673 (8 studies) Lowa,b  
  MD: 5.16 (2.38 to 7.94)
ICU mortality Study population OR2.73 (1.76 to 4.24) 576 (6 studies) Lowa,b  
267 per 1000 498 per 1000 (390 to 607)
Hospital mortality Study population OR1.94 (1.14 to 3.30) 420 (6 studies) Lowa,b  
348 per 1000 509 per 1000 (378 to 638)
Incidence of reintubation Study population OR2.21 (0.72 to 8.83) 363 (4 studies) Lowa,c  
110 per 1000 214 per 1000 (82 to 457)
Incidence of tracheostomy Study population OR2.13 (0.96 to 4.71) 425 (5 studies) Lowa,c  
133 per 1000 246 per 1000 (128 to 420)
  1. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
  2. High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to the estimate of the effect
  3. Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
  4. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
  5. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
  6. CI, confidence interval; ICU, intensive care unit; MD, mean difference; OR, odds ratio
  7. aDowngraded one point because of a high risk of bias associated with statistical analysis and reporting
  8. bDowngraded one point because of imprecise (optimal information size)
  9. cDowngraded one point because of imprecise (confidence interval)
  10. dThe corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect (and its 95% CI) estimated for the intervention group. Assumed risk was estimated from the meta-analysis of control risks