MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019653226 · doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01363-0

Noninvasive oxygenation strategies in adult patients with acute respiratory failure: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3019653226 on OpenAlexaff
Bruno L. Ferreyro, Federico Angriman, Laveena Munshi, Lorenzo Del Sorbo, Niall D. Ferguson, Bram Rochwerg, Michelle Ryu, Refik Saskin, Hannah Wunsch, Bruno R. da Costa, Damon C. Scales

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalMcMaster UniversityInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesImpactHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreSinai Health SystemPublic Health OntarioUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineMeta-analysisMechanical ventilationRandomized controlled trialCOPDEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is one of the leading causes of intensive care unit admission and is associated with high mortality. Noninvasive oxygenation strategies such as high-flow nasal cannula, standard oxygen therapy, and noninvasive ventilation (delivered by either face mask or helmet interface) are widely available interventions applied in these patients. It remains unclear which of these interventions are more effective in decreasing rates of invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality. The primary objective of this network meta-analysis is to summarize the evidence and compare the effect of noninvasive oxygenation strategies on mortality and need for invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. METHODS: We will search key databases for randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of noninvasive oxygenation strategies in adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. We will exclude studies in which the primary focus is either acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or cardiogenic pulmonary edema. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality (longest available up to 90 days). The secondary outcomes will be receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation (longest available up to 30 days). We will assess the risk of bias for each of the outcomes using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Bayesian network meta-analyses will be conducted to obtain pooled estimates of head-to-head comparisons. We will report pairwise and network meta-analysis treatment effect estimates as risk ratios and 95% credible intervals. Subgroup analyses will be conducted examining key populations including immunocompromised hosts. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted by excluding those studies with high risk of bias and different etiologies of acute respiratory failure. We will assess certainty in effect estimates using GRADE methodology. DISCUSSION: This study will help to guide clinical decision-making when caring for adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and improve our understanding of the limitations of the available literature assessing noninvasive oxygenation strategies in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019121755.

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)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.034
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.002

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207