MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082862973 · doi:10.1186/s12890-020-01267-8

Efficacy and safety of oxygen-sparing nasal reservoir cannula for treatment of pediatric hypoxemic pneumonia in Uganda: a pilot randomized clinical trial

2020· article· en· W3082862973 on OpenAlexafffund
Jerry Mulondo, Stella Maleni, Hellen Aanyu-Tukamuhebwa, Ezekiel Mupere, Alfred Andama, Chin Hei Ng, Stephen Burkot, Ella M. E. Forgie, Qaasim Mian, Christine Bachman, Gerard Rummery, Daniel Lieberman, David Bell, Michael Hawkes, Ákos Somoskövi

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pulmonary Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of AlbertaWomen and Children's Health Research InstituteChildren's Health Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineNasal cannulaRandomized controlled trialPneumoniaIntensive care medicineClinical trialSupplemental oxygenPilot trialOxygen therapyCannulaAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Oxygen is an essential therapy for hypoxemia but is scarce in low-income settings. Oxygen conserving devices optimize delivery, but to date have been designed for adults in high-income settings. Here we present the development and clinical pilot study of an oxygen-sparing nasal reservoir cannula (OSNRC) for pediatric use in low-income settings. Methods (1) Pre-clinical development of a novel OSNRC using a simulated respiratory circuit with metabolic simulator and anatomically accurate face-airway models. Simulated breathing waveforms were designed based on airway resistance, lung compliance, respiratory rate, and tidal volume of spontaneous breathing for three disease conditions. (2) Pilot, randomized, controlled, non-blinded, cross-over study of the OSNRC vs standard nasal cannula (SNC) among children hospitalized with hypoxemic pneumonia in Uganda. Eight children were randomized to OSNRC followed by SNC, and eight were randomized to SNC followed by OSNRC. Results The laboratory simulation showed that the OSNRC provided the same or higher fraction of inspired oxygen at approximately 2.5-times lower flow rate compared to SNC. The flow savings ratio exhibited a linear relationship with the OSNRC volume to tidal volume ratio with a slope that varied with breathing waveforms. The range of performance from different breathing waveforms defined a performance envelope of the OSNRC. Two mask sizes (30 mL and 50 mL) provided sufficient coverage for patients between the 3rd and 97th percentile in our targeted age range. In the clinical pilot study, the rise in capillary blood pCO 2 was similar in the OSNRC and SNC groups, suggesting that the OSNRC was not associated with CO 2 retention. There were no significant differences between OSNRC and SNC with respect to clinical adverse events, lactate levels, pH, and SpO 2 . The OSNRC group had a higher mean SpO 2 than the SNC group (adjusted mean difference, 1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 1.8), showing oxygen delivery enhancement. Conclusion The OSNRC enhances oxygen delivery without causing CO 2 retention and appears to be well-tolerated by pediatric patients. If safety, efficacy and tolerability are confirmed in larger trials, this device has the potential to optimize oxygen delivery in children in low-resource settings, reducing the global burden of pediatric pneumonia. Trial registration The trial was retrospectively registered (International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study Number (ISRCTN): 15216845 ; Date of registration: 15 July 2020).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Pulmonary MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207