Intraabdominal hypertension is less common than it used to be: A pilot step wedge trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This is a pilot study to determine the feasibility of a multicentre stepped wedge cluster randomized trial of implementing the 2013 World Society of the Intraabdominal Compartment Syndrome (WSACS) guidelines as an intervention to treat intraabdominal hypertension (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) in critically ill patients. Design: Single-centre before-and-after trial, with an observation / baseline period of 3 months followed by a 9-month intervention period. Setting: A 35 bed medical-surgical-trauma intensive care unit in a tertiary level, Canadian hospital. Patients: Recruitment from consecutively admitted adult intensive care unit patients. Intervention: In the intervention period, treatment teams were prompted to implement WSACS interventions in all patients diagnosed with IAH. Measurements and Main Results: 129 patients were recruited, 59 during the observation period and 70 during the intervention period. Only 17.0% and 12.9%, respectively, met diagnostic criteria for IAH. Many recruited patients did not have intraabdominal pressures measured regularly per study protocol. There was no difference in ICU mortality for patients in either cohort or between those with and without IAH. Conclusions: The incidence of IAH in our patient population has decreased significantly since 2015. This is likely due to a significant change in routine care of critically ill patients, especially with respect to judicious goal-directed fluid resuscitation. Patient recruitment and protocol adherence in this study were low, exacerbated by other staffing and logistical pressures during the study period. We conclude that a larger multicentre trial is unlikely to yield evidence of a detectable treatment effect.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".