Respiratory complications from nasal packing: systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patients with posterior nasal packing are thought to be at high risk for the development of respiratory complications. Controversy exists regarding the evidence in that regard; consequently, the level of vital sign monitoring required for these patients is unclear. The objective of this article is to systematically review the literature describing respiratory complications from nasal packing. METHODS: Literature published before July 2009 on Medline and Embase was eligible for inclusion. Original research and review articles whose major topic was nasal packing for epistaxis were included. Nonhuman studies and studies not published in English were excluded. Studies were evaluated for quality using a modified Downs and Black scale. Data regarding respiratory complications of nasal packing were extracted and summarized. RESULTS: Of the 262 studies retrieved, 14 met inclusion criteria (7 case series, 3 cohort studies, and 4 reviews). Six studies discussed pulmonary mechanics, three discussed sleep apnea, two reviews described complications of nasal packing, and three articles focused on the treatment of posterior epistaxis. There was a lack of high-quality literature describing adverse respiratory events following posterior packing. CONCLUSION: The literature regarding development of respiratory complications from posterior packing is mostly based on expert opinion or case series. There is some suggestion that sleep apnea may develop after placement posterior nasal packing, but the severity appears to be mild. Evidence is lacking to support the contention that all patients with posterior packing are at risk for developing adverse respiratory events or require admission to a monitored setting.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".