MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1558921805 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003571

Heliox for treatment of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

2001· review· en· W1558921805 on OpenAlexaff
Gustavo J. Rodrigo, Charles V. Pollack, Carlos Rodrigo, Brian H. Rowe, E. Haydn Walters

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHelioxMedicineCOPDJadad scaleRandomized controlled trialExacerbationWork of breathingPlaceboCrossover studyAnesthesiaMechanical ventilationInternal medicineCochrane Library

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Due to its low density properties, helium-oxygen mixtures have the potential to decrease the work of breathing and possibly avoid the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation in patients with respiratory failure. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of the addition of helium/oxygen mixtures (heliox) to standard medical care during ventilated and nonventilated acute exacerbations of COPD. SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomized controlled trials were identified from the Cochrane Airways Review Group asthma Register. Primary authors and experts were contacted. References from included and excluded studies, known reviews and texts were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were selected for inclusion if they compared treatment with heliox to placebo (oxygen or air) in randomized controlled trials in adults with an exacerbation of COPD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data from all trials were combined using the Review Manager (version 4.1). We planned to perform: 1) random effects weighted mean difference (WMD), with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), 2) Homogeneity of effect sizes with the Dersimonian and Laird method with p<0.1 as the cut point for significance, and 3) sensitivity analysis on different helium-oxygen mixtures (80/20 vs 70/30), and 4) methodological quality (Jadad score >2 vs. <3). MAIN RESULTS: Four studies, all published between 1997 and 2000 met the inclusion criteria. Two studies compared heliox-oxygen vs. air-oxygen in decompensated COPD patients who were not ventilated. One study was performed in mechanical ventilated patients and one in patients undergoing noninvasive pressure support (NIPSV) ventilated patients. Data could be obtained for only two of the studies. One was a randomized crossover study of 70:30 helium-oxygen vs air-oxygen that involved nineteen patients with acute severe COPD, hospitalized in an intensive care unit for NIPSV. In the patients receiving heliox, arterial PCO2 fell more; WMD 0.8 kPa (95% CI 0.26, -1.34). The second was a randomized trial involved 47 patients with acute COPD, who presented to an Emergency Department randomized to receive updraft nebulization of albuterol and ipratropium bromide using 80% helium and 20% oxygen or compressed air as the driving gas. Treatments were administered at 0, 20, 40, and 120 minutes after randomization. There were no significant differences in the change of FEV1 and FVC between the two groups by either the 1 or 2 hours point. although a small improvement in FEF 25-75 was significantly greater in the heliox group than in the air group. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of helium-oxygen mixtures to treat acute exacerbations of COPD in either ventilated or nonventilated patients. Suitably designed randomised controlled trials with the endpoint being the avoidance of mechanical ventilation may be justified.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207