A study of clinical outcomes and prognostic factors associated with invasive mechanical ventilation of patients in non-ICU settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is paucity of evidence related to mechanical ventilation in the general ward setting. We aimed to study the clinico-etiological profile, outcomes and prognostic factors of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in non-ICU (ward) setting, and compare these parameters with that of patients in the ICU, wherever it was reported. A systematic review and meta-analysis was done on articles published till June 2020. Two authors independently extracted the data. The study population included patients who received mechanical ventilation in ward setting. Fourteen studies reporting on 20833 patients were included (20252 exclusively ventilated in ward), with most of the studies being from Israel, USA, Japan and Taiwan. Risk of bias was estimated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies, and was found to be low. Most common reason for intubation was respiratory illness. Most common variables predicting mortality were prognostic scores like APACHE-II and Acute Physiology Score (APS). Pooled mortality rate in ward across 6 studies was 0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.74) with no heterogeneity among these 6 studies (I2=0.0). Mortality rate varied significantly with study population characteristics, and was lower among patients being weaned in ward. A major limitation of our study was the paucity of studies and significant heterogeneity among existing studies, with respect to outcomes like duration of ventilation, hospital stay, rates of complications, and prognostic factors. This systematic review and meta-analysis found that mortality among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in ward settings remains high. Data regarding other outcomes and prognostic factors predicting mortality was very heterogeneous highlighting the need for future studies concentrating specifically on these aspects. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO 2020 (CRD42020166775)
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".