MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nocturnal non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

2013· review· en· W1828314202 on OpenAlexaff
Fransien Struik, Yves Lacasse, Roger Goldstein, Huib A.M. Kerstjens, Peter J. Wijkstra

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsWest Park Healthcare CentreUniversity of TorontoInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCOPDRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalVital capacityNocturnalPositive pressure ventilationInternal medicinePhysical therapyCardiologyRespiratory systemLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is effective in treating acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Nocturnal non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (nocturnal-NIPPV) has been proposed as an intervention for stable hypercapnic patients with COPD. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of nocturnal-NIPPV at home via nasal mask or face mask in people with COPD by using a meta-analysis based on individual patient data (IPD). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register. We performed the latest search in August 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in people with stable COPD that compared nocturnal-NIPPV at home for at least five hours per night, for at least three consecutive weeks plus standard therapy with standard therapy alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: IPD were collected and two review authors assessed risk of bias independently. MAIN RESULTS: This update of the systematic review on nocturnal-NIPPV in COPD (Wijkstra 2002), has led to the inclusion of three new studies, leading to seven included studies on 245 people. We obtained IPD for all participants in all included studies. The 95% confidence interval (CI) of all outcomes included zero. These included partial pressure of CO2 and O2 in arterial blood, six-minute walking distance (6MWD), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), maximal inspiratory pressure (PImax) and sleep efficiency. The mean effect on 6MWD was small at 27.7 m and not statistically significant. Given the width of the 95% CI (-28.1 to 66.3 m), the real effect of NIPPV on 6MWD is uncertain and we cannot exclude an effect that is clinically significant (considering that the minimal clinically difference on 6MWD is around 26 m). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Nocturnal-NIPPV at home for at least three months in hypercapnic patients with stable COPD had no consistent clinically or statistically significant effect on gas exchange, exercise tolerance, HRQoL, lung function, respiratory muscle strength or sleep efficiency. Meta-analysis of the two new long-term studies did not show significant improvements in blood gases, HRQoL or lung function after 12 months of NIPPV. However, the small sample sizes of these studies preclude a definite conclusion regarding the effects of NIPPV in COPD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations136
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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