Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of findings: PS vs T-piece SBTs on SBT and extubation success

From: Trials directly comparing alternative spontaneous breathing trial techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Outcome Illustrative comparative risksa (95% CI) Risk ratio (95% CI) Number of participants (trials) Quality of evidence (GRADE)
Assumed risk, T-piece Corresponding risk, pressure support
PS vs T-piece SBTs on SBT success Study population 1.00 (0.89–1.11) 1901 (9 trials) moderateb
766 per 1000 766 per 1000 (681–850)
PS vs T-piece SBTs on extubation success Study population 1.06 (1.02–1.1) 1904 (11 trials) moderatec
749 per 1000 794d per 1000 (764–824)
  1. PS pressure support, CI confidence interval, SBT spontaneous breathing trial, GRADE Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, NNT number needed to treat
  2. aThe assumed risk is based on the median control group risk across studies. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). NNT is 1000/(794–749) = 22 (95% CI 13–67)
  3. bThe Chittawatanarat [47] trial skews data, increases heterogeneity, and changes summary estimate of effect. It also changes our interpretation of the findings
  4. cMethodologic concerns with the Colombo trial (quasi-randomized) [34]; this trial carries 10% weight in the pooled extubation outcome meta-analysis
  5. dCorresponds to NNT of 794–749 = 45 or 1000/45 = 22 (95% CI 13–67)