MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409332322 · doi:10.3310/nihropenres.13905.1

Effectiveness of mucoactives (carbocisteine and hypertonic saline) in addition to usual airway clearance management with usual airway clearance management alone in acute respiratory failure (MARCH): study protocol for a multi-centre 2x2 factorial, randomised, controlled, open-label, Phase 3, pragmatic, clinical and cost-effectiveness trial with internal pilot

2025· article· en· W4409332322 on OpenAlexafffund
Bronwen Connolly, Naomi Dickson, Ashley Agus, Bronagh Blackwood, Mark Borthwick, Judy Bradley, Christina Campbell, Marc Chikhani, Mike Clarke, Paul Dark, Ranjit Lall, Clíona McDowell, Margaret McFarland, Michael C. McKelvey, Cecilia O’Kane, Brenda O’Neill, Gavin D. Perkins, Murali Shyamsundar, Gordon Sturmey, Clifford C. Taggart, John Warburton, Barry Williams, Daniel F. McAuley

Bibliographic record

VenueNIHR Open Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersHealth Technology Assessment ProgrammeQueen's University BelfastNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchIntensive Care SocietyQueen's UniversityDepartment of Health and Social Care
KeywordsHypertonic salineAirwayMedicineAirway managementRespiratory systemRespiratory failureSalineAnesthesiaIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Usual airway clearance management in critically ill patients with acute respiratory failure includes suctioning, humidification, use of isotonic saline, and respiratory physiotherapy techniques. Escalation to use of mucoactives occurs when secretions are difficult to clear. Use of mucoactives in clinical practice for this patient population is extensive, yet empirical and variable. Carbocisteine and hypertonic saline are the most used agents, but evidence for their effectiveness is absent or minimal. The lack of existing large-scale randomised trials comparing mucoactives to usual airway clearance management alone in critically ill patients with acute respiratory failure highlights the urgency and necessity of this study. Aim To determine whether the use of mucoactives in critically ill patients with acute respiratory failure improves clinical outcomes and is cost effective, compared to usual airway clearance management alone. Methods A UK multi-centre, 2x2 factorial, randomised, controlled, open-label, Phase 3, pragmatic, clinical and cost effectiveness trial with internal pilot. The target sample is 1956 critically ill adults. Participants will be equally allocated across four trial arms. All participants will receive usual airway clearance management. In three intervention groups, participants will receive either carbocisteine, hypertonic saline, or a combination of carbocisteine and hypertonic saline. In the fourth comparator group, participants will receive usual airway clearance management alone. The primary outcome is the duration of mechanical ventilation with secondary clinical, safety, and health resource utilisation outcomes. The trial will be reported in accordance with CONSORT guidelines. Ethical approval was granted by Leeds East (Yorkshire & The Humber) Research Ethics Committee (reference 21/YH/0234) on 28 th October 2021. All participants will provide written, informed consent via either Personal or Professional Legal Representatives, and subsequently directly once capacity is regained. Trial registration Main trial: ISRCTN17683568, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN17683568 , 25 th November 2021 Study Within A Trial: ISRCTN16675252, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN16675252 , 3 rd November 2021 EudraCT Number, 2021-003763-94

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.004

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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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