[Indication of tracheostomy extubation in patients with severe neuropathy: a Meta-analysis].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the extubation indications of tracheotomy patients with severe neuropathy by Meta-analysis in order to determine the effective indication parameters for successful extubation. METHODS: The literatures in databases including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, VIP, Web of Science, PubMed and Cochrane Library were retrieved from their establishment to April 2019. The literatures were case-control studies, cohort studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or surveys related to indication parameters for successful extubation in patients with severe neuropathy. Two researchers identified and extracted literatures and data independently. The quality of literatures was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3 software. The stability of the results were evaluated by assessing the statistical models (the fixed effects model or the random effects model) and literatures quality (inferior or superior), and by sensitivity analysis. The publication bias of literatures was assessed by funnel plot. RESULTS: Eleven studies involving 1 357 participants were enrolled, and the rate of successful extubation was 46.7%-97.5%. Nine studies defined successful extubation as no need of re-intubation, and other two did not explain. All studies were high quality research, with NOS score of 6-8. Meta-analysis showed that the correlation between the level of consciousness [Glasgow coma score (GCS) ≥ 8 vs. < 8: odds ratio (OR) = 3.34, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was 2.22-5.03, P < 0.001], the amount of tracheal secretions (less vs. more: OR = 13.07, 95%CI was 5.64-30.32, P < 0.001), cough reflex (with vs. without: OR = 14.33, 95%CI was 6.36-32.28, P < 0.001), swallowing function (good vs. bad: adjusted OR = 18.56,95%CI was 8.16-42.21, P < 0.001) and successful extubation was statistically significant, and the correlation between the pulmonary infection (with vs. without: adjusted OR = 1.94, 95%CI was 0.87-4.35, P = 0.11), oxygen saturation (≥ 0.95 vs. < 0.95: OR = 2.34, 95%CI was 1.11-4.91, P = 0.12), tolerance of tube plugging (good vs. bad: OR = 2.12, 95%CI was 0.67-6.71, P = 0.20), method of tube drawing (gradually vs. abruptly: OR = 0.99, 95%CI was 0.95-1.04, P = 0.93) and successful extubation was not statistically significant. Sensitivity analysis showed that the results were stable. Funnel plot showed that the studies distributed in both sides of the funnel symmetrically, indicating the publication bias of literatures was small. CONCLUSIONS: The effective indication of extubation is consciousness level (GCS score ≥ 8), less secretion, cough reflex and good swallowing function.
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 | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.062 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".