Promoting Evidence-Based Practice in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low tidal volume ventilation and prone positioning are recommended therapies yet underused in acute respiratory distress syndrome. We aimed to assess the role of interventions focused on implementation of low tidal volume ventilation and prone positioning in mechanically ventilated adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. STUDY SELECTION: We searched the four databases from January 1, 2001, to January 28, 2021, for studies that met the predefined search criteria. Selected studies focused on interventions to improve implementation of low tidal volume ventilation and prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction using a standardized form. DATA SYNTHESIS: Due to methodological heterogeneity of included studies, meta-analysis was not feasible; thus, we provided a narrative summary and assessment of the literature. Eight nonrandomized studies met our eligibility criteria. Most studies looked at interventions to improve adherence to low tidal volume ventilation. Most interventions focused on education for providers. Studies were primarily conducted in the ICU and involved trainees, intensivists, respiratory therapists, and critical care nurses. Although overall quality of the studies was very low, the primary outcomes of interest suggest that interventions could improve adherence to or implementation of low tidal volume ventilation and prone positioning in acute respiratory distress syndrome. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction using a standardized form. Due to methodologic heterogeneity of included studies, meta-analysis was not feasible; thus, we provided a narrative summary and assessment of the literature. Eight nonrandomized studies met our eligibility criteria. Most studies looked at interventions to improve adherence to low tidal volume ventilation. Most interventions focused on education for providers. Studies were primarily conducted in the ICU and involved trainees, intensivists, respiratory therapists, and critical care nurses. Although overall quality of the studies was very low, the primary outcomes of interest suggest that interventions could improve adherence to or implementation of low tidal volume ventilation and prone positioning in acute respiratory distress syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: There is a dearth of literature addressing interventions to improve implementation of evidence-based practices in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Existing interventions to improve clinician knowledge and facilitate application of low tidal volume ventilation and prone positioning may be effective, but supporting studies have significant limitations.
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 | 0.048 | 0.195 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".