MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981749882 · doi:10.1186/s13063-019-3673-0

Protocol for a multi-centered, stepped wedge, cluster randomized controlled trial of the de-adoption of oral chlorhexidine prophylaxis and implementation of an oral care bundle for mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: the CHORAL study

2019· article· en· W2981749882 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Craig Dale, Louise Rose, Sarah Carbone, Orla Smith, Lisa Burry, Eddy Fan, Andre C. Amaral, Victoria McCredie, Ruxandra Pinto, Carlos Quiñonez, Susan E. Sutherland, Damon C. Scales, Brian H. Cuthbertson

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNosocomial Infections in ICU
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalMount Sinai HospitalHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoCanadian Lung Association
KeywordsMedicineChlorhexidineVentilator-associated pneumoniaRandomized controlled trialOral hygieneIntensive care unitIntensive care medicineIntensive careMechanical ventilationEmergency medicineRandomizationClinical trialDentistryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Routine application of chlorhexidine oral rinse is recommended to reduce risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in mechanically ventilated patients. Recent reappraisal of the evidence from two meta-analyses suggests chlorhexidine may cause excess mortality in non-cardiac surgery patients and does not reduce VAP. Mechanisms for possible excess mortality are unclear. The CHORAL study will evaluate the impact of de-adopting chlorhexidine and implementing an oral care bundle (excluding chlorhexidine) on mortality, infection-related ventilator-associated complications (IVACs), and oral health status. METHODS: The CHORAL study is a stepped wedge, cluster randomized controlled trial in six academic intensive care units (ICUs) in Toronto, Canada. Clusters (ICU) will be randomly allocated to six sequential steps over a 14-month period to de-adopt oral chlorhexidine and implement a standardized oral care bundle (oral assessment, tooth brushing, moisturization, and secretion removal). On study commencement, all clusters begin with a control period in which the standard of care is oral chlorhexidine. Clusters then begin crossover from control to intervention every 2 months according to the randomization schedule. Participants include all mechanically ventilated adults eligible to receive the standardized oral care bundle. The primary outcome is ICU mortality; secondary outcomes are IVACs and oral health status. We will determine demographics, antibiotic usage, mortality, and IVAC rates from a validated local ICU clinical registry. With six clusters and 50 ventilated patients on average each month per cluster, we estimate that 4200 patients provide 80% power after accounting for intracluster correlation to detect an absolute reduction in mortality of 5.5%. We will analyze our primary outcome of mortality using a generalized linear mixed model adjusting for time to account for secular trends. We will conduct a process evaluation to determine intervention fidelity and to inform interpretation of the trial results. DISCUSSION: The CHORAL study will inform understanding of the effectiveness of de-adoption of oral chlorhexidine and implementation of a standardized oral care bundle for decreasing ICU mortality and IVAC rates while improving oral health status. Our process evaluation will inform clinicians and decision makers about intervention delivery to support future de-adoption if justified by trial results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03382730 . Registered on December 26, 2017.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0090.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.006
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0120.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1060.017

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.364 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations34
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicNosocomial Infections in ICUFrench-language works237,207