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 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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.038
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
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