MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767744531 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000002838

Association of Driving Pressure With Mortality Among Ventilated Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis*

2017· review· en· W2767744531 on OpenAlexaff
Hiroko Aoyama, Tommaso Pettenuzzo, Kazuyoshi Aoyama, Ruxandra Pinto, Marina Englesakis, Eddy Fan

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeMeta-analysisRespiratory distressInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialRelative riskMechanical ventilationCochrane LibraryConfidence intervalAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: A recent post hoc analysis suggested that driving pressure may be more important than traditional ventilatory variables in determining outcome in mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the risk of mortality for higher versus lower driving pressure. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to February 10, 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Studies including mechanically ventilated adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, reporting driving pressure and mortality. DATA EXTRACTION: Seven studies including five secondary analysis of previous randomized controlled trials and two observational studies (6,062 patients) were eligible for study. All studies were judged as having a low risk of bias. Median (interquartile range) driving pressure between higher and lower driving pressure groups was 15 cm H2O (14-16 cm H2O). Median (interquartile range) mortality of all included studies was 34% (32-38%). DATA SYNTHESIS: In the meta-analyses of four studies (3,252 patients), higher driving pressure was associated with a significantly higher mortality (pooled risk ratio, 1.44; 95% [CI], 1.11-1.88; I = 85%). A sensitivity analysis restricted to the three studies with similar driving pressure cutoffs (13-15 cm H2O) demonstrated similar results (pooled risk ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.14-1.43; I = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirmed an association between higher driving pressure and higher mortality in mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. These findings suggest a possible range of driving pressure to be evaluated in clinical trials. Future research is needed to ascertain the benefit of ventilatory strategies targeting driving pressure in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.046
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations150
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207