[Meta-analysis of the effects between endotracheal intubation and laryngeal mask airway for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To comprehensively evaluate the resuscitation effect of endotracheal intubation (ETI) ventilation and laryngeal mask airway (LMA) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). METHODS: Databases such as Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Ebsco, Elsevier, OVID, Springer, Proquest, and China biomedical literature database (CBMdisc), CNKI, Wanfang database, Chinese Science and Technology Journal Full-text Database, VIP Chinese biomedical journal database were searched from the establishment of literature database to December 2017 to study the difference of effects between ETI and LMA for patients with OHCA. The effect determination indexes included the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rate, 1-month survival and 1-month neurological recovery. After evaluation of the quality of included studies and extraction of the data, the software of RevMan 5.3 was used to analyze those outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 9 articles, including 7 English, 2 Chinese; 5 prospective studies and 4 retrospective studies were included. All of the literatures had high quality, and the Newcastle Ottawa scale (NOS) scored 7-9 points. The Meta-analysis showed that ETI was significantly more beneficial than LMA in improving the rate of ROSC [odds ratio (OR) = 1.51, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) = 1.42-1.62, Z = 12.35,P < 0.01], and 1-month survival (OR = 1.16, 95%CI = 1.06-1.26, Z = 3.41, P < 0.01), and there was no significant difference in 1-month neurological recovery (OR = 1.13, 95%CI = 0.96-1.32, Z = 1.49, P = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: ETI has higher recovery success rate and survival rate than LMA for the rescue of OHCA adult patients, but the improvement of the nervous system is unclear.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.050 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".