The effects of inspiratory muscle training on physical function in critically ill adults: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) is one possible strategy to ameliorate respiratory muscle weakness due to invasive mechanical ventilation. Recent systematic reviews have focused on respiratory outcomes with minimal attention to physical function. The newest systematic review searched the literature until September 2017 and a recent preliminary search identified 5 new randomized controlled trials focusing on IMT in critical care. As such, a new systematic review is warranted to summarize the current body of evidence and to investigate the effect of IMT on physical function in critical care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We will search for three main concepts ("critical illness", "inspiratory muscle training", "RCT") across six databases from their inception (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Emcare, AMED, CINAHL, CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility using the Covidence web-based software. Eligible studies must include: (1) adult (≥18 years) patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) who required invasive mechanical ventilation for ≥24 hours, (2) an IMT intervention using a threshold device with the goal of improving inspiratory muscle strength, with or without usual care, and (3) randomized controlled trial design. The primary outcome of interest will be physical function. We will use the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tools (ROB2) and will assess the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool. This protocol has been reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA- P) guidelines and is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). CONCLUSION: Results will summarize the body of evidence of the effect of IMT on physical function in critically ill patients. We will submit our findings to a peer-reviewed journal and share our results at conferences.
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 | 0.061 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.006 |
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".