MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2010· reference-entry· en· W4243610187 on OpenAlexaff
Karen E. A. Burns, Neill K. J. Adhikari, Sean Keenan, Maureen O. Meade

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2010
Typereference-entry
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySunnybrook HospitalRoyal Columbian HospitalSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialMechanical ventilationRelative riskCochrane LibraryIntubationCOPDWeaningRespiratory failureConfidence intervalIntensive care unitIntensive careContinuous positive airway pressureAnesthesiaIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) provides ventilatory support without the need for an invasive airway approach. Interest has emerged in using NPPV to facilitate earlier removal of an 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, 2008), MEDLINE (January 1966 to April 2008), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2008), proceedings from four conferences, and personal files; and contacted authors to identify randomized controlled trials comparing NPPV and IPPV weaning. 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 review authors 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 selected outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 12 trials of moderate to good quality that involved 530 participants with predominantly chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Compared to the IPPV strategy, NPPV significantly decreased mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence Interval (CI) 0.38 to 0.79), ventilator associated pneumonia (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.45), length of stay in an intensive care unit (weighted mean difference (WMD) -6.27 days, 95% CI -8.77 to -3.78) and hospital (WMD -7.19 days, 95% CI -10.80 to -3.58), total duration of ventilation (WVD) -5.64 days (95% CI -9.50 to -1.77) and duration of endotracheal mechanical ventilation (WMD - 7.81 days, 95% CI -11.31 to -4.31). Noninvasive weaning had no effect on weaning failures or the duration of ventilation related to weaning. Excluding a single quasi-randomized trial maintained the significant reduction in mortality and ventilator associated pneumonia. Subgroup analyses suggested that the benefits on mortality and weaning failures were nonsignificantly greater in trials enrolling exclusively COPD patients versus mixed populations. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Summary estimates from 12 small studies of moderate to good quality that included predominantly COPD patients demonstrated a consistent, positive effect on mortality and ventilator associated pneumonia. The net clinical benefits associated with noninvasive weaning remain to be fully elucidated.

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)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
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 score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.335
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.

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

Citations77
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207