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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.018 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".