MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for treatment of respiratory failure due to exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

2003· review· en· W4210985264 on OpenAlexaff
Felix SF Ram, Joanna Picot, Josephine Lightowler, JA Wedzicha

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary diseasePositive pressure ventilationIntensive care medicineAcute respiratory failureRespiratory failureInternal medicineCOPDMechanical ventilation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) is being used increasingly in the management of patients admitted to hospital with acute respiratory failure secondary to an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of NPPV in the management of patients with respiratory failure due to an acute exacerbation of COPD. SEARCH STRATEGY: An initial search was performed using the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and other relevant electronic databases. An updated search was conducted in September 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing NPPV plus usual medical care (UMC) versus UMC alone were selected. Trials needed to recruit adult patients admitted to hospital with respiratory failure due to an exacerbation of COPD and with PaCO(2) > 6 kPa (45 mmHg). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected articles for inclusion, evaluated methodological quality of the studies and abstracted the data. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in the review. NPPV resulted in decreased mortality (Relative Risk 0.52; 95%CI 0.35, 0.76), decreased need for intubation (RR 0.41; 95%CI 0.33, 0.53), reduction in treatment failure (RR 0.48; 95%CI 0.37, 0.63), rapid improvement within the first hour in pH (Weight Mean Difference 0.03; 95%CI 0.02, 0.04), PaCO(2) (WMD -0.40 kPa; 95%CI -0.78, -0.03) and respiratory rate (WMD -3.08 bpm; 95%CI -4.26, -1.89). In addition, complications associated with treatment (RR 0.38; 95%CI 0.24, 0.60) and length of hospital stay (WMD -3.24 days; 95%CI -4.42, -2.06) was also reduced in the NPPV group. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Data from good quality randomised controlled trials show benefit of NPPV as first line intervention as an adjunct therapy to usual medical care in all suitable patients for the management of respiratory failure secondary to an acute exacerbation of COPD. NPPV should be considered early in the course of respiratory failure and before severe acidosis ensues, as a means of reducing the likelihood of endotracheal intubation, treatment failure and mortality.

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 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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations216
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207