MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974203762 · doi:10.3310/hta19230

A randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation against conventional artificial ventilation for adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome. The OSCAR (OSCillation in ARDS) study

2015· article· en· W1974203762 on OpenAlexaff
Ranjit Lall, Patrick Hamilton, Duncan Young, Claire Hulme, Peter J. Hall, Sanjoy Shah, Iain Mackenzie, William Tunnicliffe, Kathy Rowan, Brian H. Cuthbertson, Christopher McCabe

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Technology Assessment · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersHealth Technology Assessment ProgrammeNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of OxfordMedical Research CouncilUniversity of WarwickEfficacy and Mechanism Evaluation ProgrammeNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUniversity of LeedsUniversity of Southampton
KeywordsMedicineARDSMechanical ventilationOdds ratioVentilation (architecture)Randomized controlled trialFraction of inspired oxygenConfidence intervalAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicineLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) require artificial ventilation but this treatment may produce secondary lung damage. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) may reduce this damage. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of HFOV in patients with ARDS compared with standard mechanical ventilation. DESIGN: A parallel, randomised, unblinded clinical trial. SETTING: UK intensive care units. PARTICIPANTS: Mechanically ventilated patients with a partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood/fractional concentration of inspired oxygen (P : F) ratio of 26.7 kPa (200 mmHg) or less and an expected duration of ventilation of at least 2 days at recruitment. INTERVENTIONS: Treatment arm HFOV using a Novalung R100(®) ventilator (Metran Co. Ltd, Saitama, Japan) ventilator until the start of weaning. Control arm Conventional mechanical ventilation using the devices available in the participating centres. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary clinical outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days after randomisation. The primary health economic outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-six of 398 patients (41.7%) randomised to the HFOV group and 163 of 397 patients (41.1%) randomised to the conventional mechanical ventilation group died within 30 days of randomisation (p = 0.85), for an absolute difference of 0.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) -6.1% to 7.5%]. After adjustment for study centre, sex, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, and the initial P : F ratio, the odds ratio for survival in the conventional ventilation group was 1.03 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.40; p = 0.87 logistic regression). Survival analysis showed no difference in the probability of survival up to 12 months after randomisation. The average QALY at 1 year in the HFOV group was 0.302 compared to 0.246. This gives an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the cost to society per QALY of £88,790 and an ICER for the cost to the NHS per QALY of £ 78,260. CONCLUSIONS: The use of HFOV had no effect on 30-day mortality in adult patients undergoing mechanical ventilation for ARDS and no economic advantage. We suggest that further research into avoiding ventilator-induced lung injury should concentrate on ventilatory strategies other than HFOV. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10416500.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations39
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Technology AssessmentSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207