MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161177126 · doi:10.1001/jama.288.20.2561

Effect of Mechanical Ventilator Weaning Protocols on Respiratory Outcomes in Infants and Children<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>

2002· letter· en· W2161177126 on OpenAlexaff
Adrienne G. Randolph

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2002
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteMassachusetts General HospitalBrigham and Women's Hospital
KeywordsMedicineWeaningRandomized controlled trialMechanical ventilationSpontaneous breathing trialRandomizationConfidence intervalPressure support ventilationOdds ratioAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Ventilator management protocols shorten the time required to wean adult patients from mechanical ventilation. The efficacy of such weaning protocols among children has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether weaning protocols are superior to standard care (no defined protocol) for infants and children with acute illnesses requiring mechanical ventilator support and whether a volume support weaning protocol using continuous automated adjustment of pressure support by the ventilator (ie, VSV) is superior to manual adjustment of pressure support by clinicians (ie, PSV). DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized controlled trial conducted in the pediatric intensive care units of 10 children's hospitals across North America from November 1999 through April 2001. PATIENTS: One hundred eighty-two spontaneously breathing children (<18 years old) who had been receiving ventilator support for more than 24 hours and who failed a test for extubation readiness on minimal pressure support. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to a PSV protocol (n = 62), VSV protocol (n = 60), or no protocol (n = 60). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Duration of weaning time (from randomization to successful extubation); extubation failure (any invasive or noninvasive ventilator support within 48 hours of extubation). RESULTS: Extubation failure rates were not significantly different for PSV (15%), VSV (24%), and no protocol (17%) (P =.44). Among weaning successes, median duration of weaning was not significantly different for PSV (1.6 days), VSV (1.8 days), and no protocol (2.0 days) (P =.75). Male children more frequently failed extubation (odds ratio, 7.86; 95% confidence interval, 2.36-26.2; P<.001). Increased sedative use in the first 24 hours of weaning predicted extubation failure (P =.04) and, among extubation successes, duration of weaning (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast with adult patients, the majority of children are weaned from mechanical ventilator support in 2 days or less. Weaning protocols did not significantly shorten this brief duration of weaning.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations398
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207