0886 LONG-TERM NON-INVASIVE VENTILATION THERAPIES IN CHILDREN: A SCOPING REVIEW
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Long-term non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is a common modality of breathing support used for a range of sleep and respiratory disorders. The aim of this scoping review was to provide a summary of the literature relevant to long-term NIV use in children. We used systematic methodology to identify 11581 studies with final inclusion of 289. The search was run in nine databases with additional grey literature sources. The search was limited to human studies published between 1990–2016. Inclusion criteria were: children 0–18 years; and NIV use greater than 3 months outside acute settings. Study design or outcomes assessed were not limited. We identified 76 terms referencing to NIV. Study design characteristics were most often single center (84%), observational (63%), and retrospective (54%). NIV use was reported for 73 medical conditions with obstructive sleep apnea (29%) and spinal muscular atrophy (8%) as the most common conditions. There were significant differences in medical conditions across ages (Pearson Chi-square 112.4, p<0.05). Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was used in 25% of studies, versus 19% bilevel positive airway pressure, 2% auto-PAP, and 42% combination of CPAP and bilevel. Descriptive data, including NIV incidence (61%) and patient characteristics (51%), were most commonly reported. Outcomes from sleep studies were reported in 27% of studies followed by outcomes on respiratory morbidity such as improvement of respiratory symptoms, tracheostomy avoidance or decannulation, or reduction in post-operative complications in 15%. Reduction in other symptoms including sleep, neurocognition, mood, behavior and quality of life were reported in less than 5% of studies. Mortality was an outcome of interest in 6% of studies. Outcomes assessed differed by disease category (Pearson Chi-square 19.6, p<0.05). Adverse events and adherence were reported in 20% and 26% of articles respectively. Authors reported positive conclusions for 73% of studies. Long-term use of NIV has been documented in a large variety of pediatric patient groups with studies of lower methodological quality. Data was unevenly available across medical conditions. Stollery Clinical Research Fellowship funded by the Stollery Children’s Hospital Foundation.Women. Children’s Health Research Institute (WCHRI) through the Alberta Research Centre for Health.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».