Safety and efficacy of noninvasive ventilation in patients with blunt chest trauma: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This systematic review looks at the use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV), inclusive of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) and continuous positive pressure ventilation (CPAP), in patients with chest trauma to determine its safety and clinical efficacy in patients with blunt chest trauma who are at high risk of acute lung injury (ALI) and respiratory failure. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. Pairs of reviewers abstracted relevant clinical data and assessed the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using the Cochrane domain and observational studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Nine studies were included (three RCTs, two retrospective cohort studies and four observational studies without a comparison group). There was significant heterogeneity among the included studies regarding the severity of injuries, degree of hypoxemia and timing of enrollment. One RCT of moderate quality assessed the use of NPPV early in the disease process before the development of respiratory distress. All others evaluated the use of NPPV and CPAP in patients with blunt chest trauma after the development of respiratory distress. Overall, up to 18% of patients enrolled in the NIV group needed intubation. The duration of NIV use was highly variable, but NIV use itself was not associated with significant morbidity or mortality. Four low-quality observational studies compared NIV to invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with respiratory distress and showed decreased ICU stay (5.3 to 16 days vs 9.5 to 15 days), complications (0% to 18% vs 38% to 49%) and mortality (0% to 9% vs 6% to 50%) in the NIV group. CONCLUSIONS: Early use of NIV in appropriately identified patients with chest trauma and without respiratory distress may prevent intubation and decrease complications and ICU length of stay. Use of NIV to prevent intubation in patients with chest trauma who have ALI associated with respiratory distress remains controversial because of the lack of good-quality data.
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 | 0.008 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".