Association of Driving Pressure With Mortality Among Ventilated Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".