MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234885858 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004127

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation as a weaning strategy for intubated adults with respiratory failure

2003· review· en· W4234885858 on OpenAlexaff
Karen E. A. Burns, Neill K. J. Adhikari, Maureen O. Meade

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreMcMaster UniversityLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialMechanical ventilationCochrane LibraryIntubationRespiratory failureWeaningContinuous positive airway pressurePositive airway pressurePneumoniaRelative riskIntensive care unitAnesthesiaIntensive care medicineInternal medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) provides ventilatory support without the need for an invasive airway. Interest has emerged in using NPPV to facilitate earlier removal of the endotracheal tube and decrease complications associated with prolonged intubation. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the evidence comparing NPPV and invasive positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) weaning on clinical outcomes in intubated adults with respiratory failure. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, issue 2, 2003), MEDLINE (January 1966 to July 2003) and EMBASE (January 1980 to July 2003) for randomized controlled trials comparing NPPV and IPPV weaning. Additional data sources included personal files, conference proceedings and author contact. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized studies comparing early extubation with immediate application of NPPV to IPPV weaning in intubated adults with respiratory failure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and abstracted data according to prespecified criteria. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were planned to assess the impact of (i) excluding quasi-randomized trials and (ii) the etiology of respiratory failure on outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eleven trials, of which five were included, involving 171 participants with predominantly chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Overall, the included studies were of moderate to good quality. Compared to the IPPV strategy, the NPPV strategy decreased mortality (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.76), the incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.85), intensive care unit length of stay (WMD -6.88 days, 95% CI -12.60 to -1.15), hospital length of stay (WMD -7.33 days, 95%CI -14.05 to -0.61), total duration of mechanical support (WMD -7.33 days, 95% CI -11.45 to -3.22) and the duration of endotracheal mechanical ventilation (WMD -6.79 days, 95% CI -11.70 to -1.87). There was no effect of NPPV on weaning failures or the duration of mechanical support related to weaning and insufficient data to pool adverse events or quality of life. Excluding a single quasi-randomized trial maintained the significant reduction in mortality and ventilator associated pneumonia. Subgroup analyses suggested that the mortality benefit of the NPPV approach is greater in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Summary estimates from five studies of moderate to good quality demonstrated a consistent positive effect on overall mortality. At present, use of NPPV to facilitate weaning in mechanically ventilated patients, with predominantly chronic obstructive lung disease, is associated with promising, although insufficient, evidence of net clinical benefit.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.372
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

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
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

Citations41
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207