Does noninvasive positive pressure ventilation improve outcome in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The results of studies on noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure unrelated to cardiogenic pulmonary edema have been inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of NPPV on the rate of endotracheal intubation, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and mortality for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure not due to cardiogenic pulmonary edema. DATA SOURCE: We searched the databases of MEDLINE (1980 to October 2003) and EMBASE (1990 to October 2003). Additional data sources included the Cochrane Library, personal files, abstract proceedings, reference lists of selected articles, and expert contact. STUDY SELECTION: We included studies if a) the design was a randomized controlled trial; b) patients had acute hypoxemic respiratory failure not due to cardiogenic pulmonary edema; c) the interventions compared noninvasive ventilation and standard therapy with standard therapy alone; and d) outcomes included need for endotracheal intubation, length of intensive care unit or hospital stay, or intensive care unit or hospital survival. DATA EXTRACTION: In duplicate and independently, we abstracted data to evaluate methodological quality and results. DATA SYNTHESIS: The addition of NPPV to standard care in the setting of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure reduced the rate of endotracheal intubation (absolute risk reduction 23%, 95% confidence interval 10-35%), ICU length of stay (absolute reduction 2 days, 95% confidence interval 1-3 days), and ICU mortality (absolute risk reduction 17%, 95% confidence interval 8-26%). However, trial results were significantly heterogeneous. CONCLUSION: Randomized trials suggest that patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure are less likely to require endotracheal intubation when NPPV is added to standard therapy. However, the effect on mortality is less clear, and the heterogeneity found among studies suggests that effectiveness varies among different populations. As a result, the literature does not support the routine use of NPPV in all patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.
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 | 0.014 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".