MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2244342225 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000001216

Guidelines for the Appropriate Use of Bedside General and Cardiac Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Critically Ill Patients—Part I

2015· review· en· W2244342225 on OpenAlexaff
Heidi L. Frankel, Andrew W. Kirkpatrick, Mahmoud Elbarbary, Michael Blaivas, Himanshu Desai, David P. Evans, Douglas T. Summerfield, Anthony D. Slonim, Raoul Breitkreutz, Susanna Price, Paul E. Marik, Daniel Talmor, Alexander Levitov

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityFoothills Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCritically illIntensive care medicineUltrasonographyCritical illnessSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To establish evidence-based guidelines for the use of bedside ultrasound by intensivists and specialists in the ICU and equivalent care sites for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes for organs of the chest, abdomen, pelvis, neck, and extremities. METHODS: The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system was used to determine the strength of recommendations as either strong or conditional/weak and to rank the "levels" of quality of evidence into high (A), moderate (B), or low (C) and thus generating six "grades" of recommendation (1A-1B-1C-2A-2B-2C). Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used for all questions with clinically relevant outcomes. RAND appropriateness method, incorporating modified Delphi technique, was used in steps of GRADE that required panel judgment and for those based purely on expert consensus. The process was conducted by teleconference and electronic-based discussion, following clear rules for establishing consensus and agreement/disagreement. Individual panel members provided full disclosure and were judged to be free of any commercial bias. The process was conducted independent of industry funding. RESULTS: Twenty-four statements regarding the use of ultrasound were considered-three did not achieve agreement and nine were approved as conditional recommendations (strength class 2). The remaining 12 statements were approved as strong recommendations (strength class 1). Each recommendation was also linked to its level of quality of evidence. Key strong recommendations included the use of ultrasonography for ruling-in pleural effusion and assisting its drainage, ascites drainage, ruling-in pneumothorax, central venous cannulation, particularly for internal jugular and femoral sites, and for diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis. Conditional recommendations were given to the use of ultrasound by the intensivist for diagnosis of acalculous cholecystitis, renal failure, and interstitial and parenchymal lung diseases. No recommendations were made regarding static (vs dynamic) ultrasound guidance of vascular access or the use of needle guide devices. CONCLUSIONS: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding several recommendations for the use of ultrasound in the ICU. Evidence-based recommendations regarding the appropriate use of this technology are a step toward improving patient outcomes in relevant patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.130
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.130
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0100.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0070.003
Research integrity0.0090.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.007

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 head0.376
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.143 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations482
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207