MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221013184 · doi:10.1101/2022.03.18.22272586

Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract in Invasively Ventilated Patients in an Intensive Care Unit: A protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022· review· en· W4221013184 on OpenAlexaff
Naomi Hammond, John Myburgh, Gian Luca Di Tanna, Tessa Garside, Ruan Vlok, Sajeev Mahendran, Derick Adigbli, Simon Finfer, Fiona Goodman, Gordon Guyatt, Ian Seppelt, Anthony Delaney

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNosocomial Infections in ICU
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialProtocol (science)Meta-analysisIntensive care unitMEDLINEIntensive careIntensive care medicineConfidence intervalSystematic reviewMechanical ventilationEmergency medicineSurgeryInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction The use of Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract (SDD) as a preventative infection-control strategy in invasively ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) remains low despite numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) consistently reporting reductions in interval mortality rates and shorter durations of mechanical ventilation. The Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract in the Intensive Care Unit (SuDDICU) cluster cross-over RCT, that includes over 5500 participants randomised to receive a standardised commercial grade SDD interventions or standard care, will be reported in 2022 and will add substantive weight to previous RCT data assessing the effect of SDD on interval mortality compared to standard care. We will conduct an updated systematic review and prospective aggregate data meta-analysis of previous conducted and published RCTs, developed using a protocol and statistical analysis plan completed prior to the completion of the SuDDICU RCT and including the SuDDICU data to present the most current evidence available to guide clinical practice. Methods and analysis We will include RCTs that compare the effect on hospital mortality and other patient-centred outcomes of treatment with SDD compared to standard care in invasively ventilated adults in the ICU. We will perform a search that includes the electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE and clinical trial registries. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, perform full article reviews and extract study data, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. We will report study characteristics and quantify risk of bias. We will perform random effects Bayesian meta-analyses to provide pooled estimates that SDD improves outcomes, whenever it is feasible to do so. We will evaluate overall certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. Conclusion This updated systematic review and prospective meta-analysis will provide clinicians with an expedited assessment of the totality of current evidence about the effect on mortality of using SDD in mechanically ventilated ICU patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.084
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.159
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0840.159
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0250.029
Bibliometrics0.0140.017
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.007

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.273 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicNosocomial Infections in ICUFrench-language works237,207