Clinical manifestations of tension pneumothorax: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although health care providers utilize classically described signs and symptoms to diagnose tension pneumothorax, available literature sources differ in their descriptions of its clinical manifestations. Moreover, while the clinical manifestations of tension pneumothorax have been suggested to differ among subjects of varying respiratory status, it remains unknown if these differences are supported by clinical evidence. Thus, the primary objective of this study is to systematically describe and contrast the clinical manifestations of tension pneumothorax among patients receiving positive pressure ventilation versus those who are breathing unassisted. METHODS/DESIGN: We will search electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) and clinical trial registries from their first available date as well as personal files, identified review articles, and included article bibliographies. Two investigators will independently screen identified article titles and abstracts and select observational (cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional) studies and case reports and series that report original data on clinical manifestations of tension pneumothorax. These investigators will also independently assess risk of bias and extract data. Identified data on the clinical manifestations of tension pneumothorax will be stratified according to whether adult or pediatric study patients were receiving positive pressure ventilation or were breathing unassisted, as well as whether the two investigators independently agreed that the clinical condition of the study patient(s) aligned with a previously published tension pneumothorax working definition. These data will then be summarized using a formal narrative synthesis alongside a meta-analysis of observational studies and then case reports and series where possible. Pooled or combined estimates of the occurrence rate of clinical manifestations will be calculated using random effects models (for observational studies) and generalized estimating equations adjusted for reported potential confounding factors (for case reports and series). DISCUSSION: This study will compile the world literature on tension pneumothorax and provide the first systematic description of the clinical manifestations of the disorder according to presenting patient respiratory status. It will also demonstrate a series of methods that may be used to address difficulties likely to be encountered during the conduct of a meta-analysis of data contained in published case reports and series. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42013005826.
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 | 0.070 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.005 |
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".