MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096502598 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd002787

Inhaled nitric oxide for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in children and adults

2003· review· en· W2096502598 on OpenAlexaff
Jenni Sokol, Susan E Jacobs, Desmond Bohn

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboRandomized controlled trialCochrane LibraryRelative riskConfidence intervalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure affects all age groups and may result from a number of systemic diseases. It continues to be associated with high mortality and morbidity. Initial studies examining the effect of inhaled nitric oxide in respiratory failure demonstrated transient improvement in oxygenation but did not examine mortality or other significant morbidity outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To systematically examine randomized controlled trials addressing the effect of inhaled nitric oxide, compared with placebo inhaled gas, on mortality and morbidity in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomized controlled trials were identified from electronic databases: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 2, 2002;MEDLINE (January 1966-August 2002); EMBASE (1980-March 2001); CINAHL (1982-July 2002), as well as from bibliographies of retrieved articles. Relevant journals and conference proceedings were hand searched and authors published in this field were contacted for knowledge of unpublished ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing inhaled nitric oxide with maximal conventional therapy and inhaled placebo, in either children or adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Qualitative assessment of each trial was made and analyses performed according to statistical methods in Review Manager MetaView 4.1. A sub-group analysis was performed to assess the impact of inhaled nitric oxide at varied doses. MAIN RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials were evaluated, assessing 535 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (Age range not provided). Lack of data prevented assessment of all outcomes. There was no significant difference of nitric oxide on mortality in trials without cross-over (RR 0.98, 95%CI 0.66,1.44). Published evidence from one study demonstrated nitric oxide to transiently improve oxygenation in the first 72 hours of treatment. Limited data demonstrated no significant difference in ventilator-free days between treatment and placebo groups, and no specific dose of nitric oxide was significantly advantageous over another. Other clinical indicators of effectiveness, such as duration of hospital and intensive care stay, were inconsistently reported. There were no significant complications directly attributable to this treatment. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Nitric oxide did not demonstrate any statistically significant effect on mortality and transiently improved oxygenation in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Lack of data prevented assessment of other clinically relevant end points. If further trials comparing inhaled nitric oxide with an inhaled placebo are to proceed, they should be stratified for primary disease, assess the impact of other combined treatment modalities for respiratory failure, and must specifically evaluate clinically relevant outcomes, before any benefit of inhaled nitric oxide for respiratory failure can be excluded.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.297 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations95
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207