The effect of reference position versus right lateral position on the intra-abdominal pressure in mechanically ventilated patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) is a frequent plentiful problem in patients admitted to critical care units. It ranges from a surge incidence of morbidity and mortality to a particular need for nursing health care, so recognition of the occurrence of IAH is a very critical issue for critical care nurses and physician. This study aimed to recognize the effects of various body position with the various head of bed elevation on the intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) in patients with mechanical ventilation.Methods: Design: A non-randomized, prospective observational study was used. Setting: Trauma and general intensive care units at Assuit University Hospitals. Method: In a prospective observational study, during the third day of mechanical ventilation, 60 patients were screened for IAP via a urinary catheter, in two various body positions in three separate degrees of the head of the bed (HOB) elevation (0º, 15º, and 30º). The position was changed at least 4 hours apart over a 24-h period.Results: In lateral recumbence, IAP measurements were significantly elevated compared to supine position, they were 19.70 ± 3.09 mmHg versus 16.00 ± 3.14 (p < .001), 22.80 ± 3.56 mmHg versus 19.03 ± 2.95 (p < .001), and 26.08 ± 3.59 mmHg versus 21.46 ± 2.90 versus (p < .001) at 0º, 15º, and 30º respectively. The mean of IAP difference was 3.7 ± 3.0 mmHg at 0º, 3.8 ± 1.00 mmHg at 15º, and 5.5 ± 1.01 mmHg at 30 º (p < .005).Conclusions: IAP reading is significantly elevated by changing from supine to lateral position especially with HOB elevation and significantly correlated with mortality rate in patients with mechanical ventilation
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".