MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3091473327 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038648

Incremental effect of non-invasive oscillating device on chest physiotherapy in critically ill children: a cross-over randomised trial

2020· article· en· W3091473327 on OpenAlexaffabout
Atsushi Kawaguchi, G Bernier, Andy Adler, Guillaume Émériaud, Philippe Jouvet

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversité de MontréalChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChest physiotherapyRandomized controlled trialAirwayStage (stratigraphy)Intensive care unitCritically illVentilation (architecture)Intensive carePhysical therapyTidal volumeMechanical ventilationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicineRespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Chest physiotherapy (CPT) and intrathoracic percussion ventilation have been recognised as to encourage dislodging the secretions; nonetheless, the tolerance to the procedure and its efficiency have not been proven to be sufficient. METHOD AND ANALYSES: This study aims to examine the tolerance, feasibility and physiological effects in airway clearance by using a novel extrathoracic non-invasive oscillating transducer device (NIOD) in critically ill children. A two-stage cross-over randomised controlled study in a paediatric intensive care unit in a Canadian Academic Children's Hospital will be applied. Children under 24 months old, for whom CPT is prescribed for airway clearance, will be included. The study consists of two stages; (1) Stage 1 'Frequency Level': we will apply two different frequencies of the NIOD (40 Hz vs 60 Hz) for 12 min each, on each patient 3 hours apart, and (2) Stage 2 'NIOD versus CPT': we will implement NIOD and CPT alternatingly for 3 hours apart. The order of the procedures will be randomly allocated for each case. We will compare the average Δchanges of tidal lung volume measured by a 3D imaging system and regional lung functions using electrical impedance tomography, between the two different frequencies and between the NIOD periods and the CPT periods. We will also examine tolerance by seeing COMFORT Scales and related complications during the procedures. We estimate necessary sample size as 6 for each arm (Total 12 cases) for stage 1 and 48 cases for Stage 2, with power of 0.8 and alpha of 0.05. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Health Research Ethics Board of University of Montreal, Canada (REB number: 2020-2471). We will disseminate our findings through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations in paediatric or/and critical care fields. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03821389).

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 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 venueBMJ Open→Same topicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→