MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

International Practice Variation in Weaning Critically Ill Adults from Invasive Mechanical Ventilation

2018· article· en· W2790685536 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecSt. Michael's HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMechanical ventilationCritically illWeaningIntensive care medicineVentilator weaningCritical illnessEmergency medicineAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Randomized trials and meta-analyses have informed several aspects of weaning. Results are rarely replicated in practice, as evidence is applied in intensive care units that differ from the settings in which it was generated. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to: 1) describe weaning practice variation (identifying weaning candidates, conducting spontaneous breathing trials, using ventilator modes, and other aspects of care during weaning); 2) characterize regional differences in weaning practices; and 3) identify factors associated with practice variation. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, self-administered, international postal survey of adult intensivist members of regional critical care societies from six geographic regions, including Canada, India, the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia/New Zealand, and the United States. We worked with societies to randomly select potential respondents from membership lists and administer questionnaires with the goal of obtaining 200 responses per region. RESULTS: We analyzed 1,144 questionnaires (Canada, 156; India, 136; United Kingdom, 219; Europe, 260; Australia/New Zealand, 196; United States, 177). Across regions, most respondents screened patients once daily to identify spontaneous breathing trials candidates (regional range, 70.0%-95.6%) and less often screened twice daily (range, 12.2%-33.1%) or more than twice daily (range, 1.6%-18.2%). To wean patients, most respondents used pressure support alone (range, 31.0%-71.7%) or with spontaneous breathing trials (range, 35.7%-68.1%). To conduct spontaneous breathing trials, respondents predominantly used pressure support with positive end-expiratory pressure (range, 56.5%-72.3%) and T-piece (8.9%-59.5%). Across regions, we found important variation in screening frequency, spontaneous breathing trials techniques; ventilator modes, written directives to guide care, noninvasive ventilation; and the roles played by available personnel in various aspects of weaning. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings document the presence and extent of practice variation in ventilator weaning on an international scale, and highlight the multidisciplinary and collaborative nature of weaning.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.338 · 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