MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Awake prone positioning effectiveness in moderate to severe COVID-19 a randomized controlled trial.

2024· preprint· en· W4405140312 on OpenAlexaff
Nguyen Thanh Phong, Du Hong Duc, Ho Bich Hai, Nguyen Thanh Nguyen, Le Dinh Van Khoa, Le Thuy Thuy Khanh, Luu Hoai Bao Tran, Linh Nguyen Thi My, Cao Thi Cam Van, Dang Phuong Thao, Nguyen Thi Diem Trinh, Pham Tieu Kieu, Nguyen Thanh Truong, Vo Tan Hoang, Nguyễn Thanh Ngọc, Tran Thi Dong Vien, Vo Trieu Ly, Tran Dang Khoa, Abi Beane, James Anibal, Guy Thwaites, Ronald B. Geskus, David A. Clifton, Nguyễn Thị Phương Dung, Evelyne Kestelyn, Guy Glover, Le Van Tan, Lam Minh Yen, Nguyen Le Nhu Tung, Nguyen Thanh Dung, Louise Thwaites

Bibliographic record

VenueWellcome Open Research · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialNasal cannulaRandomizationIntensive care unitMechanical ventilationClinical trialEmergency medicinePhysical therapyAnesthesiaInternal medicineCannulaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Awake prone positioning (APP) may be beneficial in patients with respiratory failure who are not receiving mechanical ventilation. Randomized controlled trials of APP have been performed during peak COVID-19 periods in unvaccinated populations, with limited data on compliance or patient acceptability. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and acceptability of APP in a lower-middle income country in an open-label randomized controlled trial using a dedicated APP implementation team and wearable continuous-monitoring devices. Methods: The trial was performed at a tertiary level hospital in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, recruiting adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with moderate or severe COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen therapy via nasal/facemask systems or high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). Patients were allocated by a computer-generated random number sequence in a 1:1 ratio to standard care or APP, where a dedicated team provided bedside support. Wearable devices continuously recorded pulse oximetry and body position continuously. Our primary outcome was escalation of respiratory support within 28 days of randomization. Results: Ninety-three patients were enrolled in this study between March 2022 and March 2023. Eighty (86%) patients had received ≥2 doses of SARS-CoV2 vaccine. The study was terminated early because of a reduction in the number of eligible patients. Data from 46 patients allocated to APP and 47 to standard care were available for analysis. At baseline, 19/47 (40%) patients allocated to the standard care group and 14/46 (30%) patients allocated to the APP group received HFNC. Continuous monitoring data were available for all patients monitored with wearable devices. Significantly greater mean daily APP times were achieved in those allocated to APP, however, most achieved less than the target 8 h/day. We did not detect clear differences in the primary outcome (relative risk,RR, 0.85, 95% CI 0.40-1.78, p=0.67) or secondary outcomes, including intubation rate and 28-day mortality. Patients reported prone positioning was comfortable, although almost all patients preferred supine positioning. No adverse events associated with the intervention were observed. Conclusions: APP was not associated with benefit, but there was no sign of harm. Continuous monitoring with wearable devices is both feasible and acceptable for patients. In our population, achieving prolonged APP time was challenging despite a dedicated support team, and patients preferred supine positioning. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT05083130.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.146
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWellcome Open ResearchSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207