Clinical practice guidelines for the use of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation and noninvasive continuous positive airway pressure in the acute care setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O ver the past two decades, the use of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation and noninvasive continuous positive airway pressure by mask has increased substantially for acutely ill patients.Initial case series and uncontrolled cohort studies that suggested benefit in selected patients [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] led to many randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Both methods of ventilation have been used in the setting of acute respiratory failure to avoid endotracheal intubation in different patient populations and settings, with variable success.[117][118][119][120][121][122][123][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141] In addition, noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation has been used to facilitate early liberation from conventional mechanical ventilation [72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82] and to prevent reintubation.70,71,[83][84][85][86][87] These guidelines were developed to answer the following questions: What evidence is available in the literature to support recommendations for the use of noninvasive positive-pressure venti lation and continuous positive airway pressure for patients who are at risk of or who have acute respiratory distress or failure, patients who have undergone surgery and patients who are being weaned from mechanical ventilation or have recently undergone extubation?In addition, how can these two modes of noninvasive ventilation be optimally applied in these settings?Consensus conference statements 152,153 and guidelines [154][155][156][157] exist for the use of noninvasive ventiliation (the term used throughout this paper to refer to both noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation and continuous positive airway pressure) in the acute care setting.However, since publication of the two English guidelines addressing use in the acute care setting, 154,156 many new RCTs have been published.In addi-tion, the first 154 of the two previous guidelines predated the development of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group methodology, [158][159][160] and a less rigorous methodology was used in the second.156 Accordingly, we conducted a comprehensive search and appraisal of the current literature, using the GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the research and to generate clinical recommendations. Methods Leadership and scopeAn 18-member guidelines panel of universityaffiliated clinicians, led by two cochairs, was formed in June 2007 as an initiative of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group / Canadian Critical Care Society Noninvasive Ventilation Guidelines Group.The panel consisted of 15 physicians and 3 respiratory therapists who had a variety of Competing interests: See end of article for competing interests.
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 | 0.030 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.012 |
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".