MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594024824 · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000001570

Nebulization of Antiinfective Agents in Invasively Mechanically Ventilated Adults

2017· review· en· W2594024824 on OpenAlexaff
Candela Solé-Lleonart, Jean‐Jacques Rouby, Stijn Blot, Garyphallia Poulakou, Jean Chastre, Lucy B. Palmer, Matteo Bassetti, Charles‐Édouard Luyt, José Manuel Pereira, Jordi Riera, Tim Felton, Jayesh Dhanani, Tobias Welte, J.M. Garcia-Alamino, Jason A. Roberts, Jordi Rello

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNosocomial Infections in ICU
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkMount Sinai Hospital
FundersEuropean Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious DiseasesEuropean CommissionEuropean Regional Development FundFundació Catalana de Pneumologia
KeywordsMedicineColistinPneumoniaMechanical ventilationOdds ratioVentilator-associated pneumoniaRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineAntibioticsIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nebulization of antiinfective agents is a common but unstandardized practice in critically ill patients. METHODS: A systematic review of 1,435 studies was performed in adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. Two different administration strategies (adjunctive and substitute) were considered clinically relevant. Inclusion was restricted to studies using jet, ultrasonic, and vibrating-mesh nebulizers. Studies involving children, colonized-but-not-infected adults, and cystic fibrosis patients were excluded. RESULTS: Five of the 11 studies included had a small sample size (fewer than 50 patients), and only 6 were randomized. Diversity of case-mix, dosage, and devices are sources of bias. Only a few patients had severe hypoxemia. Aminoglycosides and colistin were the most common antibiotics, being safe regarding nephrotoxicity and neurotoxicity, but increased respiratory complications in 9% (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.18; I = 52%), particularly when administered to hypoxemic patients. For tracheobronchitis, a significant decrease in emergence of resistance was evidenced (risk ratio, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.64; I = 0%). Similar findings were observed in pneumonia by susceptible pathogens, without improvement in mortality or ventilation duration. In pneumonia caused by resistant pathogens, higher clinical resolution (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.30 to 2.96; I = 0%) was evidenced. These findings were not consistently evidenced in the assessment of efficacy against pneumonia caused by susceptible pathogens. CONCLUSIONS: Performance of randomized trials evaluating the impact of nebulized antibiotics with more homogeneous populations, standardized drug delivery, predetermined clinical efficacy, and safety outcomes is urgently required. Infections by resistant pathogens might potentially have higher benefit from nebulized antiinfective agents. Nebulization, without concomitant systemic administration of the drug, may reduce nephrotoxicity but may also be associated with higher risk of respiratory complications.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations100
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesiologySame topicNosocomial Infections in ICUFrench-language works237,207