MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965626469 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000003904

A Core Outcome Set for Critical Care Ventilation Trials

2019· article· en· W2965626469 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersEuropean Society of Intensive Care MedicineIsrael Science FoundationMonash UniversityDepartment for the EconomyUniversity of LiverpoolEuropean Respiratory SocietyGroupe canadien de recherche en soins intensifsGlaxoSmithKlineIntensive Care SocietyAmerican Thoracic Society
KeywordsMedicineDelphi methodPsychological interventionClinical trialIntensive careRandomized controlled trialHealth careFamily medicineNursingIntensive care medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to obtain international consensus on a set of core outcome measures that should be recorded in all clinical trials of interventions intended to modify the duration of ventilation for invasively mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU. DESIGN: A two-stage consensus process was undertaken between December 2015 and January 2018. Stage 1 included an online three-round Delphi study and three consensus meetings. Stage 2 included three consensus meetings. SETTING: The setting was international, including Europe, North and South America, Australia, Asia, and Africa. PARTICIPANTS: Organization members representing intensive care survivors and carers; nursing, allied health professionals, and critical care physicians; clinical trials groups and trial investigators; and industry. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Delphi study outcomes were scored by participants from one (least important) to nine (most important). Consensus criteria for including the outcome in the core set were more than 70% of responses rating the outcome above seven and not more than 15% rating the outcome less than 3. From 222 participants, 183 from 38 organizations in 27 countries contributed to the consensus process. Stage 1: Delphi response rates from 200 participants ranged from 89% to 90% across three rounds. Forty-seven outcomes were ranked as follows: 19 met consensus criteria for inclusion and were considered at three consensus meetings (33 participants). Six outcomes were agreed for the core set as follows: extubation, reintubation, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay, health-related quality of life, and mortality. Stage 2: Three consensus meetings (37 participants) agreed on the measures for each outcome. CONCLUSIONS: We used rigorous and well-established methods to develop a core outcome set for use in all clinical trials evaluating interventions intended to modify duration of mechanical ventilation. This core outcome set will inform the design of future trials in this field by strengthening methodological quality and improving comparability across trials.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.596
GPT teacher head0.638
Teacher spread0.042 · 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