Clinical Practice Guideline for Suctioning the Airway of the Intubated and Non-Intubated Patient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide physicians, physiotherapists, nurses and respiratory therapists with guidelines for the application of airway suctioning. DESIGN: This clinical practice guideline was developed using the model by Browman and colleagues. A working group of representatives from four professional colleges (nurses, physicians and surgeons, physiotherapists and respiratory therapists) and research experts was formed to conduct a systematic review, develop evidence-based recommendations and generate clinical practice guidelines. MEDLINE (1966 to 1998), CINAHL (1982 to 1997) and EMBASE (1974 to 1996) as well as the reference lists of identified articles were searched. Inclusion of articles was determined by at least two group members, and studies were classified according to type. Randomized, controlled; randomized; and nonrandomized crossover and comparative cohort trials were grouped by type of intervention and population for use in the development of recommendations. Other observational and animal studies dealing with adverse effects of suctioning were included in the review but were not used in the development of recommendations. Input on the evidence-based recommendations was sought and incorporated from members of all four professions and from experts on content and methodology. SETTING: Any setting (hospital or home) where suctioning is performed. POPULATION: Intubated and nonintubated adults, infants and children. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: An attempt was made to develop recommendations in each of the subcategories of suctioning techniques addressed by at least one study. In some subcategories, definite recommendations were made (13 in adults, and three in children and infants); in other subcategories, insufficient evidence precluded recommendations. The recommendations addressed the following aspects of suctioning: preoxygenation, hyperinflation, insufflation, hyperoxygenation, hyperventilation, saline instillation, adaptor use, medication use, open and closed systems, and various types of catheters.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".