The effect of different suctioning modalities on physiologic measures and the incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective : To compare physiologic measures and the incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) using different modalities of endotrachael tube (ETT) suctioning. Methods : A Quasi-experimental design was used with 80 adults in an intensive care unit. Two modalities of suctioning were compared: 1) not instilling normal saline (NS) into the ETT before suctioning, and 2) instilling NS into the ETT tube before suctioning. The outcome variables were: physiologic measures (heart rate, respiratory rate and blood pressure and oxygen saturation), the incidence of Ventilator Associated Condition (VAC) and Possible Ventilator Associated Pneumonia (PVAP) at day 5 after mechanical ventilation. Results : There were no differences in the physiologic measures assessed at day 5 and a significantly higher rate of VAC in patients who had NS installed ( p = .009). Four patients developed PVAP compared to 10 patients in group 2 where NS was installed but that did to reach significance ( p = .077). Factors associated with VAC were age, WBC > 12,000, antibiotic use, amount of secretions, and NS installation. The same factors were associated with the development of PVAP with the exception of NS installation which did not reach significance. Conclusions : Installing NS in the ETT tube did not result in significant physiologic changes at day 5, and more rates of VAC and PVAP were noted. Therefore, the use of this procedure is questionable and further studies are needed to provide conclusive evidence.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".