MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312429525 · doi:10.56792/jktn8537

Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation for the prevention and treatment of respiratory complications in acute cervical spinal cord injury: A retrospective service evaluation

2022· article· en· W4312429525 on OpenAlexaff
Debbie Hubbard, Claire Fitzgerald, Ema Swingwood

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Respiratory Care · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExsufflationIncidence (geometry)Retrospective cohort studyPositive airway pressurePopulationSpinal cord injuryRespiratory systemAnesthesiaSurgeryInsufflationInternal medicineSpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background A cervical spinal cord injury (CSCI) is a life-changing event resulting in neurological weakness. Acutely, respiratory complications are the leading cause of mortality. Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) is used to augment cough and promote airway clearance in the prevention and treatment of respiratory complications in this population. The incidence of respiratory complications in subjects with CSCI who receive MI-E is not widely reported. Objectives To report on the incidence of respiratory complications and to evaluate the clinical application of MI-E in subjects with acute traumatic CSCI. Methods This was a retrospective case note review. Data was collected for subjects with a traumatic CSCI admitted to a U.K. major trauma centre between January 2017 and September 2018. The incidence of respiratory complications on admission and 3 weeks post-admission were collected. Where used, detail relating to MI-E clinical application was recorded. Results 33 subjects were eligible for inclusion. The overall incidence of respiratory complications was 21% (7/33). There was no significant difference in occurrence of respiratory complications between those who received MI-E and those who did not. There was a significant difference in the clinical application of therapeutic MI-E compared to prophylactic MI-E. The ‘number of cycles’ and ‘exhale pressure’ settings were found to be significantly greater in those receiving therapeutic treatment (p = <0.001; p = 0.002 respectively). Reporting of other MI-E parameters and treatment detail was poor. Conclusion Whilst the findings of this review may suggest that MI-E provides no additional benefit in the prevention of respiratory complications following acute traumatic CSCI, firm conclusions cannot be drawn due the small sample and poor treatment detail reporting. Further incidence reporting in a multi-site study, including those with thoracic injuries is warranted.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.354 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Respiratory CareSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207