Optimal delivery of aerosolized medication to mechanically ventilated pediatric and neonatal patients: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Delivering aerosolized medication to patients during mechanical ventilation is a common practice in respiratory therapy for adult, pediatric, and neonatal populations. However, aerosol delivery in pediatric populations is inconsistent and challenging, impacting how the drug is delivered. Some factors that influence drug delivery efficiency are directly under the purview of the clinician or therapist administering the drugs. However, excessive variability exists amongst clinicians and therapists working at the same site and between different sites. This review aims to systematically summarize the literature to identify current practice variations, identify common practices, and provide suggestions to guide future research in this area. In addition, this scoping review aims to identify the available evidence and knowledge gaps in the literature regarding the delivery of aerosolized medication to pediatric populations during mechanical ventilation. More specifically, the question that guided our research was: What are the best strategies for optimizing aerosol delivery of medication to pediatric patients, including neonates, while on mechanical ventilation? Methods: A scoping review, using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, was conducted until September 2022 in the CINAHL, EMBASE (Ovid), and Medline (Ovid) databases. Our initial search yielded 248 articles. After screening the titles, abstracts, and full text of the articles according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, five articles were analyzed. Results: We identified three main topics for discussion: the type of device used for administering aerosolized medication, appropriate mechanical ventilation settings, and optimal placement of the nebulizer delivery system. Conclusion: Of the three topics we intended to discuss, we only found enough evidence to suggest using mesh nebulizers to increase aerosol deposition. We found conflicting or outdated results for the other two topics. This demonstrates a significant gap in the literature since aerosol medications are routinely administered to mechanically ventilated neonatal and other pediatric 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 | 0.011 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".