Medical equipment that improve safety and outcomes of inter-facility transportation of critically ill patients: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although many critically ill patients require inter-facility transport for definitive or specialized therapy, the medical equipment required to enhance transport safety remains unclear. This review was performed to summarize the evidence regarding devices used to improve the safety and survival in patients requiring such transport. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing outcomes according to the presence or absence of devices (or new vs conventional devices) during transfer of critically ill patients. RESULTS: Four studies focusing on continuous blood pressure monitoring, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, pelvic circumferential compression devices, and cuffed tracheal tubes, respectively, met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis was not performed because the 4 studies focused on different devices. Near-continuous blood pressure monitoring increased interventions such as intravenous fluid administration during transport, shortened the intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay, and reduced the incidence of multiple-organ failure compared with use of oscillometric devices. Despite the small sample size and varying severity of illness among the groups, transport of patients with severe respiratory failure under extracorporeal membrane oxygenation resulted in fewer hypoxemic events during transport than transport on conventional ventilators. During transport of patients with pelvic fractures, pelvic belts may help to reduce mortality and the transfusion volume. Cuffed (vs uncuffed) tracheal tubes may reduce post-transport tube replacement events in pediatric patients. CONCLUSION: Studies on devices needed for inter-facility transport of critically ill patients are scarce, but some devices may be beneficial.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".