MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119513658 · doi:10.4187/respcare.01011

Higher PEEP in Patients With Acute Lung Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2011· review· en· W2119513658 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiratory Care · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsMedicineARDSMeta-analysisMechanical ventilationRandomized controlled trialRelative riskPositive end-expiratory pressureVentilation (architecture)Mortality rateInternal medicineConfidence intervalLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Studies of ventilation strategies that included higher PEEP in patients with acute lung injury (ALI) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have yielded conflicting results. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether higher PEEP during volume-limited and pressure-limited ventilation is associated with 28-day mortality or barotrauma rates in patients with ALI/ARDS. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the bibliographies of retrieved papers to identify randomized controlled trials that compared higher and lower PEEP in adult patients with ALI/ARDS who were already receiving volume-limited or pressure-limited ventilation. Two of us independently abstracted study-level data, including study design, patient characteristics, study methods, intervention, and main results. We pooled the study-level data with a random-effects model, unless heterogeneity was low (I(2) < 50%), in which case we used a fixed-effects model. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. RESULTS: Four randomized trials (2,360 participants) were evaluated. Higher PEEP had a nonsignificant trend toward lower 28-day mortality (pooled relative risk 0.90, 95% CI 0.79-1.02). There was no difference in barotrauma between the 2 groups (pooled relative risk 1.17, 95% CI 0.90-1.52). Two studies reported an adjusted hospital death rate, and the pooled results of sensitivity analysis with those adjusted rates were identical to those of the unadjusted analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In 4 recent studies that used volume-limited or pressure-limited ventilation in ALI/ARDS patients, higher PEEP was not associated with significantly different short-term mortality or barotrauma. This study does not support the routine use of higher PEEP in patients with ALI/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.

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), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.279 · 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