MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2724275578 · doi:10.1177/0885066617714770

High-Frequency Ventilation Modalities as Salvage Therapy for Smoke Inhalation–Associated Acute Lung Injury: A Systematic Review

2017· review· en· W2724275578 on OpenAlex
Andrew C. Miller, Paula Ferrada, Sameer S. Kadri, Krupa Nataraj-Bhandari, Amir Vahedian‐Azimi, Sadeq A. Quraishi

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intensive Care Medicine · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNIH Clinical CenterNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineSmoke inhalationInhalationIntensive care medicineHigh-frequency ventilationAnesthesiaModalitiesMechanical ventilation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Smoke inhalation-associated acute lung injury (SI-ALI) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in victims of fire tragedies. To date, there are no evidence-based guidelines on ventilation strategies in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) after smoke inhalation. We reviewed the existing literature for clinical studies of salvage mechanical ventilation (MV) strategies in patients with SI-ALI, focusing on mortality and pneumonia as outcomes. METHODS: A systematic search was designed in accordance with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS; 0 to 9 stars), with a score ≥7 being the threshold for inclusion in the meta-analysis. A systematic search strategy was used to search 10 databases. Clinical studies were included in which patients: (1) experienced smoke inhalation, (2) treated with MV, and (3) described a concurrent or historical control group. RESULTS: A total of 226 potentially relevant studies were identified, of which 7 studies on high-frequency percussive ventilation (HFPV) met inclusion criteria. No studies met inclusion for meta-analysis (NOS ≥ 7). In studies comparing HFPV to conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV), mortality and pneumonia incidence improved in 3 studies and remained unchanged in 3 others. No change in ventilator days or ICU length of stay was observed; however, oxygenation and work of breathing improved with HFPV. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical ventilation in patients with SI-ALI has not been well studied. High-frequency percussive ventilation may decrease in-hospital mortality and pneumonia incidence when compared to CMV. The absence of "good" quality evidence precluded meta-analysis. Based upon low-quality evidence, there was a very weak recommendation that HFPV use may be associated with lower mortality and pneumonia rates in patients with SI-ALI. Given SI-ALI's unique underlying pathophysiology, and its potential implications on therapy, randomized controlled studies are required to ensure that patients receive the safest and most effective care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (#47015).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.341 · 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