MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185560352 · doi:10.1159/000517012

Use of Incentive Spirometry in Adults following Cardiac, Thoracic, and Upper Abdominal Surgery to Prevent Post-Operative Pulmonary Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021· review· en· W3185560352 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiration · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisRelative riskCardiothoracic surgerySpirometryAbdominal surgeryCardiac surgeryCINAHLStrictly standardized mean differenceMEDLINESystematic reviewRehabilitationConfidence intervalSurgeryPhysical therapyPsychological interventionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Currently, consensus on the effectiveness of incentive spirometry (IS) following cardiac, thoracic, and upper abdominal surgery has been based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of lower methodological quality. To improve the quality of the research and to account for the effects of IS following thoracic surgery, in addition to cardiac and upper abdominal surgery, we performed a meta-analysis with thorough application of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation scoring system and extensive reference to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine, with rigorous methodology, whether IS for adult patients (18 years of age or older) undergoing cardiac, thoracic, or upper abdominal surgery significantly reduces30-day post-operative pulmonary complications (PPCs), 30-day mortality, and length of hospital stay (LHS) when compared to other rehabilitation strategies. METHODS: The literature was searched using Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science for RCTs between the databases' inception and March 2019. A random-effect model was selected to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Thirty-one RCTs involving 3,776 adults undergoing cardiac, thoracic, or upper abdominal surgery were included. By comparing the use of IS to other chest rehabilitation strategies, we found that IS alone did not significantly reduce 30-day PPCs (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.88-1.13) or 30-day mortality (RR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.42-1.25). Likewise, there was no difference in LHS (mean difference = -0.17,95% CI: -0.65 to 0.30) between IS and the other rehabilitation strategies. None of the included trials significantly impacted the sensitivity analysis and publication bias was not detected. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that IS alone likely results in little to no reduction in the number of adult patients with PPCs, in mortality, or in the LHS, following cardiac, thoracic, and upper abdominal surgery.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.274 · 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