Velcro Ties in Early Postoperative Pediatric Tracheostomy Care: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To systematically review the literature to determine the difference in complications between standard twill and Velcro ties following pediatric tracheostomy. Data Sources MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and CINAHL Plus were searched up to August 2020. Review Methods Two authors independently screened articles for eligibility. Retrospective and prospective studies were included as long as there was a direct comparison between twill and Velcro ties. Quantitative and qualitative analysis was performed. The main outcomes were skin‐related complications and accidental decannulation. Results Three studies were included in the final analysis: 1 randomized prospective trial and 2 retrospective studies. There were 238 patients total (137 twill, 101 Velcro). Combined analysis showed skin‐related complications in 23% of the Velcro group and 44% of the twill group. Meta‐analysis for skin‐related complications showed no significant difference when comparing Velcro with standard twill ties (risk ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.24‐1.17]; P =. 12, n = 238 participants from 3 studies, I2 = 66%). Accidental decannulation rates were overall low and comparable between groups (1.0% of twill, 1.4% of Velcro). Conclusion Based on limited data, skin‐related complications were not statistically different between Velcro and twill ties. Accidental decannulation is rare with Velcro and standard twill ties, and both are viable options following pediatric tracheostomy.
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 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".