MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for treatment of respiratory failure due to severe acute exacerbations of asthma

2005· reference-entry· en· W4236766075 on OpenAlexaff
Felix SF Ram, SR Wellington, BH Rowe, JA Wedzicha

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2005
Typereference-entry
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalAsthmaRelative riskCOPDAcute severe asthmaIntensive care medicineMEDLINECINAHLContinuous positive airway pressureMeta-analysisMechanical ventilationInternal medicinePhysical therapyRespiratory diseasePsychological interventionLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) has been shown to be effective in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with acute respiratory failure. However, its role in patients with severe acute asthma is uncertain. The pathophysiologic condition of acute respiratory failure in asthma is in many ways similar to that of acute respiratory failure in COPD. Therefore, there is reason to believe that NPPV could also be successful in patients with severe acute asthma. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of NPPV in adults with severe acute asthma, in comparison to usual medical care, with respect to mortality, tracheal intubation, changes in blood gases, and hospital length of stay. SEARCH STRATEGY: An initial search for studies was carried out using the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL). Additional searches were carried out on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Science Citation and web based clinical trials databases. Key journals with web sites were also searched as well as respiratory conference proceedings. Following this, the bibliographies of each randomised controlled trial obtained (and any review articles) were searched for additional studies. The date of the most recent search for trials was May 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: All data were analysed using RevMan. For continuous variables a weighted mean difference and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was calculated for each study outcome. For dichotomous variables relative risk with 95% confidence interval was calculated. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All data was analysed using RevMan. For continuous variables, a weighted mean difference and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was calculated for each study outcome. For dichotomous variables relative risk with 95% confidence interval was calculated. MAIN RESULTS: From an initial search of 696 abstracts, 11 trials were obtained in full text for closer examination. Ten trials were excluded and one included. The one included trial, on 30 patients, showed benefit with NPPV when compared to usual medical care alone, with significant improvements in hospitalisation rate, number of patients discharged from emergency department, percent predicted forced expiratory volume in one minute (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) and respiratory rate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The application of NPPV in patients suffering from status asthmaticus, despite some interesting and very promising preliminary results, still remains controversial. Large, prospective randomised controlled trials are therefore needed to determine the role of NPPV in status asthmaticus.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations98
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207