MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057139283 · doi:10.1136/bmj.c2327

High frequency oscillation in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS): systematic review and meta-analysis

2010· review· en· W2057139283 on OpenAlexafffund
S. C. Sud, Maneesh Sud, Jan O. Friedrich, M Meade, Niall D. Ferguson, Hannah Wunsch, Neill K. J. Adhikari

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreMount Sinai HospitalMcMaster University Medical CentreUniversity of ManitobaSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity Health NetworkToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineARDSFraction of inspired oxygenDiscontinuationRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalMean airway pressureMeta-analysisClinical trialInternal medicineHigh-frequency ventilationAnesthesiaMechanical ventilationIntensive care medicineLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine clinical and physiological effects of high frequency oscillation compared with conventional ventilation in patients with acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases to March 2010, conference proceedings, bibliographies, and primary investigators. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials of high frequency oscillation compared with conventional ventilation in adults or children with acute lung injury/ARDS. Data selection Three authors independently extracted data on clinical, physiological, and safety outcomes according to a predefined protocol. We contacted investigators of all included studies to clarify methods and obtain additional data. Analyses used random effects models. RESULTS: Eight randomised controlled trials (n=419 patients) were included; almost all patients had ARDS. Methodological quality was good. The ratio of partial pressure of oxygen to inspired fraction of oxygen at 24, 48, and 72 hours was 16-24% higher in patients receiving high frequency oscillation. There were no significant differences in oxygenation index because mean airway pressure rose by 22-33% in patients receiving high frequency oscillation (P</=0.01). In patients randomised to high frequency oscillation, mortality was significantly reduced (risk ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.98, P=0.03; six trials, 365 patients, 160 deaths), and treatment failure (refractory hypoxaemia, hypercapnoea, hypotension, or barotrauma) resulting in discontinuation of assigned therapy was less likely (0.67, 0.46 to 0.99, P=0.04; five trials, 337 patients, 73 events). Other risks were similar. There was substantial heterogeneity between trials for physiological (I(2)=21-95%) but not clinical (I(2)=0%) outcomes. Pooled results were based on few events for most clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: High frequency oscillation might improve survival and is unlikely to cause harm. As ongoing large multicentre trials will not be completed for several years, these data help clinicians who currently use or are considering this technique for patients with ARDS.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations246
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207