Ventilator-associated pneumonia and intubation location in adults with traumatic injuries: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality among critically ill patients, particularly those who present with traumatic injuries. This review aims to determine whether patients with traumatic injuries who are intubated in the prehospital setting are at higher risk of developing VAP compared with those intubated in the hospital. METHODS: A systematic review of Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane electronic databases was conducted from inception to January 2021. Inclusion criteria were patients with traumatic injuries who were intubated in the prehospital or hospital settings with VAP as an outcome. Using a random-effects model, the risk of VAP across study arms was compared by calculating a summary relative risk with 95% confidence intervals. The results of individual studies were also summarized qualitatively. RESULTS: The search identified 754 articles of which 6 studies (N = 2,990) met the inclusion criteria. All studies were good quality based on assessment with the Newcastle Ottawa scale. Prehospital intubation demonstrated an increased risk of VAP development in two of the six studies. Among the six studies, the overall quality weighted risk ratio was 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.31). CONCLUSION: Traumatically injured patients who are intubated in the prehospital setting have a similar risk of developing VAP compared with those that are intubated in the hospital setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level IV.
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 | 0.011 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".