MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

[Safety criteria for early goal-oriented rehabilition exercise in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in intensive care unit: a systematic review].

2019· review· en· W2984956249 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nannan Ding, Yao Li, Zhigang Zhang, Liping Yang, Lingjie Jiang, Biantong Jiang, Yuchen Wu, Caiyun Zhang, Jinhui Tian

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialMechanical ventilationCochrane LibraryIntensive care unitPhysical therapyCohortCohort studyOrthopedic surgeryEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety criteria for early goal-oriented rehabilition exercise in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in intensive care unit (ICU) by systematic review. METHODS: Randomized controlled trails (RCTs) and cohort studies about early goal-oriented rehabilition exercise in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in ICU were retrieved in CBM, CNKI, Wanfang Data, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science from their foundation to March 2018, and other sources as supplement was also retrieved. The intervention program of RCT study was ICU routine nursing in control group, early activity in observation group, and early activity in cohort study without control group. Early activities included active and passive activities on the bed, sitting upright, bed-chair transfer, standing and walking. Literature screening and data extraction were performed independently by two researchers. Variables or parameters related to cardiovascular, respiratory, nervous, orthopedic and other systems were collected for safety criteria. Variables or parameters used in at least three literatures were collected for each system. Cochrane 5.1.0 was used to evaluate the quality of RCT study, and Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of cohort study. RESULTS: ) > 0.88 (n = 5). The nervous system included 4 variables, including no neuromuscular disease (n = 7), no increase in intracranial pressure (n = 7), no coma (n = 4), understand and do the right thing (n = 4). The orthopedic system included 2 variables, including no fracture (n = 3), no unstable fracture (n = 8). Other factors included 2 variables, including no open abdomen wound (n = 4), and no palliative care (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified safety criteria for early goal-directed rehabilition exercise in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in ICU included five systems of cardiovascular, respiratory, neurological, orthopedic, and other systems, in which cardiovascular and respiratory systems were the most frequently cited variables or parameters. The consistency of each system security criteria or variables reported by different literatures was high, but the parameters need to be further verified by high-quality study.

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)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.163
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.163
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.015
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207