MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334352185 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011659

CYCLE pilot: a protocol for a pilot randomised study of early cycle ergometry versus routine physiotherapy in mechanically ventilated patients

2016· article· en· W2334352185 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Michelle E. Kho, Alexander J. Molloy, France Clarke, Karen Koo, Jill Rudkowski, Andrew Seely, Joseph R. Pellizzari, Jean‐Éric Tarride, Marina Mourtzakis, Timothy Karachi

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaWestern UniversityUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityPrograms for Assessment of Technology in Health Research InstituteSt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationNational Center for Complementary and Integrative HealthMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchReseau canadien de recherche respiratoire
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyProtocol (science)Physical medicine and rehabilitationSports medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Early exercise with in-bed cycling as part of an intensive care unit (ICU) rehabilitation programme has the potential to improve physical and functional outcomes following critical illness. The objective of this study is to determine the feasibility of enrolling adults in a multicentre pilot randomised clinical trial (RCT) of early in-bed cycling versus routine physiotherapy to inform a larger RCT. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 60-patient parallel group pilot RCT in 7 Canadian medical-surgical ICUs. We will include all previously ambulatory adult patients within the first 0-4 days of mechanical ventilation, without exclusion criteria. After informed consent, patients will be randomised using a web-based, centralised electronic system, to 30 min of in-bed leg cycling in addition to routine physiotherapy, 5 days per week, for the duration of their ICU stay (28 days maximum) or routine physiotherapy alone. We will measure patients' muscle strength (Medical Research Council Sum Score, quadriceps force) and function (Physical Function in ICU Test (scored), 30 s sit-to-stand, 2 min walk test) at ICU awakening, ICU discharge and hospital discharge. Our 4 feasibility outcomes are: (1) patient accrual of 1-2 patients per month per centre, (2) protocol violation rate <20%, (3) outcome measure ascertainment >80% at the 3 time points and (4) blinded outcomes ascertainment >80% at hospital discharge. Hospital outcome assessors are blinded to group assignment, whereas participants, ICU physiotherapists, ICU caregivers, research coordinators and ICU outcome assessors are not blinded to group assignment. We will analyse feasibility outcomes with descriptive statistics. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Each participating centre will obtain local ethics approval, and results of the study will be published to inform the design and conduct of a future multicentre RCT of in-bed cycling to improve physical outcomes in ICU survivors. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02377830; Pre-results.

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)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.012

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations32
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207