Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving publication content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

A protocolised non-invasive weaning strategy did not reduce time to liberation from ventilation, although there were other possible advantages for patients.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index > metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Gavin D Perkins 1,2,*, Dipesh Mistry 1, Ranjit Lall 1, Fang Gao-Smith 2, Catherine Snelson 3, Nicholas Hart 4,5, Luigi Camporota 5, James Varley 6, Coralie Carle 7, Elankumaran Paramasivam 8, Beverly Hoddell 1, Adam de Paeztron 1, Sukhdeep Dosanjh 1, Julia Sampson 1,2, Laura Blair 1, Keith Couper 1,2, Daniel McAuley 9, J Duncan Young 10, Tim Walsh 11, Bronagh Blackwood 9, Louise Rose 12, Sarah E Lamb 1, Melina Dritsaki 1, Mandy Maredza 1, Iftekhar Khan 1,13, Stavros Petrou 1, Simon Gates 1

1 Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
2 Critical Care Unit, Heartlands Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
3 Department of Critical Care, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
4 Division of Asthma, Allergy and Lung Biology, King’s College London, London, UK
5 Guy’s and St Thomas’ Foundation Trust, King’s College London, London, UK
6 Department of Critical Care, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals, Cambridge, UK
7 Department of Critical Care, Peterborough City Hospital, Peterborough, UK
8 Department of Critical Care, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, UK
9 School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Centre for Experimental Medicine Institute for Health Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK
10 Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
11 Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Division of Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
12 Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
13 Population and Patient Health, King’s College London, London, UK
* Corresponding author Email:

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation:{{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al. ' : ''}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.


If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

An error has occurred in processing the XML document