MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955069444 · doi:10.4102/sajp.v56i1.545

The effects of manual hyperflation using self-inflating manual resuscitation bags on arterial oxygen tensions and lung compliance - Ameta-analysis of the literature

2000· article· en· W2955069444 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Barker, C. J. Eales

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth African Journal of Physiotherapy · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineResuscitationPulmonary complianceArterial bloodCompliance (psychology)AnesthesiaConfidence intervalLungPhysical therapyInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The self-inflating manual resuscitation bag (MRB) is a modality which is commonly used by physiotherapists to manually hyperinflate the lungs of mechanically ventilated patients. There is limited scientific evidence to support its therapeutic use and the literature is not in agreement as to the effects of manual hyperinflation. A meta-analysis of the current research on humans has been conducted to investigate the effects of this modality on arterial oxygen tensions and lung compliance. All published studies evaluating the effects of manual hyperinflation (or bagging) on arterial oxygen tensions and/or lung compliance on mechanically ventilated patients have been retrieved. Only studies which reported results in terms of mean values and standard deviation or standard error of the mean could be used in this analysis. Eleven studies were identified between the time period 1968 -1995. Seven of these studies fitted the inclusion criteria. The mean and standard error of the mean values for arterial oxygen tensions (Pa02) and lung compliance (CL) have been used to calculate the 95% confidence intervals and these results were plotted on a graph. A comparative analysis has been performed on the results of the seven studies. A generally non-significant association between bagging and the Pa02 and CL values was demonstrated. Great discrepancies were identified in the designs of the seven included studies. Since the seven studies included in this meta-analysis show an overall non-significant association, it is reasonable to assume that the therapeutic value of the self-inflating manual resuscitation bag is questionable. The studies presented such divergent designs that they do not offer conclusive evidence. More standardized, multi-centre studies are required to clarify the therapeutic value of this modality. Other methods of recruiting the lungs of critically ill patients during and after physiotherapy intervention, need to be explored.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouth African Journal of PhysiotherapySame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207