Use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in acute viral bronchiolitis: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), used either alone or associated with heliox (CPAP-He), has become a popular therapeutic option for bronchiolitis. This systematic review assesses the impact of CPAP on endotracheal intubation, carbon dioxide pressure (PCO(2) ) and respiratory distress in patients with bronchiolitis. METHODS: Systematic search including studies that used CPAP or CPAP-He in infants with bronchiolitis admitted to a PICU. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and the GRADE system. RESULTS: Five CPAP (one crossover randomized controlled trial [RCT] and four before-after studies) and three CPAP-He (one quasi-RCT and two before-after) studies were included. CPAP was reported to reduce PCO(2) (-6.9 to -11.7 mmHg, respectively, P < 0.015), respiratory rate (-12 to -16 breaths/min after 2 hr, P < 0.01) and the modified Wood clinical asthma score (mWCAS, -2.2 points after 1 hr, P < 0.01). CPAP-He studies observed decreases in PCO(2) (-9.7 mmHg, P < 0.05), mWCAS (-2.12 points, P < 0.001), and respiratory rate (-8 to -13.7 breaths/min, P < 0.05) after 1 hr of treatment. Endotracheal intubation rates ranged from 0-12.5% (CPAP-He) to 17-27% (CPAP). After applying the GRADE system, the quality of evidence for a beneficial effect of CPAP and CPAP-He was classified as low. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence supporting the use of CPAP to reduce PCO(2) and respiratory distress in bronchiolitis is of low methodological quality, and there is no conclusive evidence that CPAP reduces the need for intubation. No definitive conclusions could be drawn about the CPAP-He effect. Further research using higher quality methodology is needed to clarify the beneficial role of these interventions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".