MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980923900 · doi:10.2147/oaem.s25048

Management of critically ill patients receiving noninvasive and invasive mechanical ventilation in the emergency department

2012· review· en· W1980923900 on OpenAlexaff
Louise Rose

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Access Emergency Medicine · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineMechanical ventilationVentilation (architecture)Emergency departmentNoninvasive ventilationARDSPressure support ventilationRespiratory failurePneumoniaExacerbationEmergency medicineAnesthesiaLungInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients requiring noninvasive and invasive ventilation frequently present to emergency departments, and may remain for prolonged periods due to constrained critical care services. Emergency clinicians often do not receive the same education on management of mechanical ventilation or have similar exposure to these patients as do their critical care colleagues. The aim of this review was to synthesize the evidence on management of patients requiring noninvasive and invasive ventilation in the emergency department including indications, clinical applications, monitoring priorities, and potential complications. Noninvasive ventilation is recommended for patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Less evidence supports its use in asthma and other causes of acute respiratory failure. Use of noninvasive ventilation in the prehospital setting is relatively new, and some evidence suggests benefit. Monitoring priorities for noninvasive ventilation include response to treatment, respiratory and hemodynamic stability, noninvasive ventilation tolerance, detection of noninvasive ventilation failure, and identification of air leaks around the interface. Application of injurious ventilation increases patient morbidity and mortality. Lung-protective ventilation with low tidal volumes based on determination of predicted body weight and control of plateau pressure has been shown to reduce mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, and some evidence exists to suggest this strategy should be used in patients without lung injury. Monitoring of the invasively ventilated patient should focus on assessing response to mechanical ventilation and other interventions, and avoiding complications, such as ventilator-associated pneumonia. Several key aspects of management of noninvasive and invasively ventilated patients are discussed, with a particular emphasis on initiation and ongoing monitoring priorities focused on maintaining patient safety and improving patient outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations25
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Access Emergency MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207