Safety and Effectiveness of Breath Stacking in Management of Persons with Acute Atelectasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Atelectasis is frequently observed in acutely ill, intubated patients. One technique for management of the secretion retention is breath stacking, a two-part procedure comprising manual hyperinflation using a resuscitation bag and a one-way valve, followed by a manually assisted cough and suctioning as required. The purpose of this preliminary study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of breath stacking combined with conventional physiotherapy (PT) care (PT composed of modified postural drainage combined with percussions, vibrations and suctioning) compared with PT alone in the management of acute atelectasis. Method: Intubated subjects with acute (, 72 hours) major atelectasis (lobar or greater) were randomized to receive breath stacking plus PT or PT alone twice daily for 3 days. Results: Twenty subjects entered the study. There was no difference between the groups on chest radiograph (p 5 .94) or volume of sputum suctioned. There were no respiratory or cardiac complications. Conclusions: Although this study had less than adequate power, the results demonstrated that breath stacking plus PT was no more effective than conventional PT alone for these patients. Breath stacking was a safe procedure as practised in this study.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".