MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165371495 · doi:10.1001/jama.287.24.3238

Noninvasive Positive-Pressure Ventilation for Postextubation Respiratory Distress

2002· article· en· W2165371495 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sean Keenan, Caroline Powers, David G. McCormack, Gary Block

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsRoyal Columbian Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRespiratory distressConfidence intervalIntensive care unitIntubationMechanical ventilationAnesthesiaPopulationRelative riskOxygen therapyRandomized controlled trialPulse oximetryEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) has been demonstrated to be effective in preventing the need for endotracheal intubation in some patients who present with acute respiratory failure. It is also used for patients who develop acute respiratory distress after extubation, but there are no randomized controlled trials that address its effectiveness in this population. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of NPPV compared with standard medical therapy in preventing the need for endotracheal reintubation in high-risk patients who develop respiratory distress during the first 48 hours after extubation. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, unblinded study with concealed allocation conducted between August 1, 1996 and October 31, 1999. SETTING: An intensive care unit (ICU) in an academic, tertiary care hospital in Ontario. PATIENTS: Eighty-one patients with a history of cardiac or respiratory disease or who initially required ventilatory support for more than 2 days and who developed respiratory distress within 48 hours of extubation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive standard medical therapy alone (supplemental oxygen to maintain oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry > or = 95%; n = 42) or NPPV by face mask plus standard medical therapy (n = 39). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of reintubation, duration of mechanical ventilation, lengths of ICU and hospital stay, and hospital mortality. RESULTS: Comparing the NPPV group with the standard-therapy group, there was no difference in the rate of reintubation (72% vs 69%; relative risk, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.38) or hospital mortality (31% for both groups; relative risk, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.91). Similarly, no difference was found in duration of mechanical ventilation or length of ICU or hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of NPPV to standard medical therapy does not improve outcome in heterogeneous groups of patients who develop respiratory distress during the first 48 hours after extubation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.612
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations395
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207