MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122231156 · doi:10.4187/respcare.02164

Unplanned Extubation in the Neonatal ICU: A Systematic Review, Critical Appraisal, and Evidence-Based Recommendations

2013· review· en· W2122231156 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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 · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCINAHLIntubationMechanical ventilationEmergency medicineMEDLINECochrane LibraryGestational ageIntensive care medicineMeta-analysisAnesthesiaPregnancyPsychological interventionInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To update the state of knowledge on unplanned extubations (UEs) in neonatal ICUs. This review focuses on the following topics: incidence, risk factors, reintubation after UE, outcomes, and prevention. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scielo, Lilacs, and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant publications from January 1, 1950, through January 30, 2012. Fifteen articles were selected for data abstraction. The search strategy included the following key words: "unplanned extubation," "accidental extubation," "self extubation," "unintentional extubation," "unexpected extubation," "inadvertent extubation," "unintended extubation," "spontaneous extubation," "treatment interference," and "airway accident." Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Grades of recommendation were assessed according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine's levels of evidence system. Studies with Newcastle-Ottawa scale score ≥ 5 that included appropriate statistical analysis were deemed of high methodological quality. RESULTS: The overall mean Newcastle-Ottawa scale score was 3.5. UE rates ranged from 0.14 to 5.3 UEs/100 intubation days, or 1% to 80.8%. Risk factors included restlessness/agitation (13-89%), poor fixation of endotracheal tube (8.5-31%), tube manipulation at the time of UE (17-30%), and performance of a patient procedure at bedside (27.5-51%). One study showed that every day on mechanical ventilation increased the UE risk 3% (relative risk 1.03, P < .001). The association between birth weight/gestational age and UE is controversial. Reintubation rates ranged from 8.3% to 100%. There is still a gap of information about strategies addressed to reduce the incidence of UE. The best method of endotracheal tube securement remains a controversial issue. CONCLUSIONS: Despite numerous publications on UE, there are few studies assessing preventive strategies for adverse events and there is a lack of randomized clinical trials. Recommendations are proposed based on the current available literature.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.214
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.301 · 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