MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Review of non‐invasive ventilation in the emergency department: clinical considerations and management priorities

2009· review· en· W1967195149 on OpenAlexaff
Louise Rose, Marie Gerdtz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Nursing · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineVentilation (architecture)Emergency departmentIntubationExacerbationIntervention (counseling)Respiratory failureMedical emergencyNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to synthesise evidence from published literature on non-invasive ventilation to inform nurses involved in the clinical management of non-invasive ventilation in the emergency department. BACKGROUND: Non-invasive ventilation is a form of ventilatory support that does not require endotracheal intubation and is used in the early management of acute respiratory failure in emergency departments. Safe delivery of this intervention requires a skilled team, educated and experienced in appropriate patient selection, available devices and monitoring priorities. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHOD: A multi-database search was performed to identify works published in the English language between 1998-2008. Search terms included: non-invasive ventilation, continuous positive airway pressure and emergency department. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review were identified and systematically applied. RESULTS: Terminology used to describe aspects of non-invasive ventilation is ambiguous. Two international guidelines inform the delivery of this intervention, however, much research has been undertaken since these publications. Strong evidence exists for non-invasive ventilation for patients with acute exacerbation of congestive heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Non-invasive ventilation may be delivered with various interfaces and modes; little evidence is available for the superiority of individual interfaces or modes. CONCLUSIONS: Early use of non-invasive ventilation for the management of acute respiratory failure may reduce mortality and morbidity. Though international guidelines exist, specific recommendations to guide the selection of modes, settings or interfaces for various aetiologies are lacking due to the absence of empirical evidence. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Monitoring of non-invasive ventilation should focus on assessment of response to treatment, respiratory and haemodynamic stability, patient comfort and presence of air leaks. Complications are related to mask-fit and high air flows; serious complications are few and occur infrequently. The use of non-invasive ventilation has resource implications that must be considered to provide effective and safe management in the emergency department.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.005
Bibliometrics0.0120.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NursingSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207