Prone positioning of non-intubated patients with COVID-19 - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Purpose Several studies have reported adopting prone positioning (PP) in non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related hypoxaemic respiratory failure. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the impact of PP on oxygenation and clinical outcomes. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase and COVID-19 living systematic review from December1 st 2019 to July23 rd 2020. We included studies that reported using PP in hypoxaemic, non-intubated adult COVID-19 patients. Primary outcome measure was the weighted mean difference (MD) in oxygenation parameters (PaO 2 /FiO 2, PaO 2 or SpO 2 ) pre and post-PP. Results Fifteen single arm observational studies reporting PP in 449 patients were included. Substantial heterogeneity was noted in terms of, location within hospital where PP was instituted, respiratory supports, frequency and duration of PP. Significant improvement in oxygenation was reported post-PP: PaO 2 /FiO 2 , (MD 37.6, 95%CI 18.8, 56.5); PaO 2 , (MD 30.4 mmHg, 95%CI 10.9, 49.9); and SpO 2 , (MD 5.8%, 95%CI 3.7, 7.9). Patients with a pre-PP PaO 2 /FiO 2 ≤150 experienced greater oxygenation improvements compared with those with a pre-PP PaO 2 /FiO 2 >150 (MD 40.5, 95%CI −3.5, 84.6) vs. 37, 95%CI 17.1, 56.9). Respiratory rate decreased post-PP (MD −2.9, 95%CI −5.4, −0.4). Overall intubation and mortality rates were 21% (90/426) and 26% (101/390) respectively. No major adverse events were reported. Conclusions Despite significant variability in frequency and duration of PP and respiratory supports, PP was associated with improvements in oxygenation parameters without any reported serious adverse events. Major limitation being lack of control arm and adjustment for confounders. Clinical trials are required to determine the effect of awake PP on patient-centred outcomes. Systematic review registration Registration/protocol in PROSPERO (CRD42020194080). What is the key question? Is the novel approach of prone positioning in non-intubated patients associated with improvement in oxygenation? What is the bottom line? Prone position in non-intubated severe COIVD 19 suffers is associated with improvement of oxygenation while the short- and long-term patient centred out comes in this awake prone patient need more investigation. Why read on? Our study is first of its kind (Systematic review and Meta-analysis) summarising the evidence surrounding the less invasive innovate technique of prone position in non-intubated COVID-19 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 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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".