Role of bronchoscopy in the management of patients with suspected or suffering from ventilator-associated pneumonia: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The utility of bronchoscopy in the treatment of patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) has been proposed, although prior research has yielded inconclusive findings. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to examine the impact of bronchoscopy on mortality rates, duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), and length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) among patients with VAP. Methods Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies were acquired by conducting a comprehensive search in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. To account for the potential heterogeneity, a random-effects model was utilized to combine the findings and incorporate its potential influence. Results Eight RCTs and three cohort studies, including 3907 patients with highly suspected or clinically diagnosed VAP, were included. Compared to the controls, bronchoscopy use was not associated with a significant effect on all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR]: 0.81, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.62 to 1.05, p = 0.12; I 2 = 57 %). Subgroup analysis showed that bronchoscopy used for the microbiological diagnosis of VAP was not associated with reduced mortality (RR: 0.92, 95 % CI: 0.75 to 1.13), while therapeutic bronchoscopy use was associated with significantly reduced mortality (RR: 0.53, 95 % CI: 0.35 to 0.81). The duration of MV or length of ICU stay was not significantly different between groups. Conclusions Bronchoscopy use for the purpose of the microbiological diagnosis of VAP did not reduce short-term mortality compared to diagnosis without bronchoscopy use, while therapeutic bronchoscopy use was associated with reduced mortality in these 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 | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.052 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".