MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effectiveness of adherence to home non-invasive ventilation (NIV) upon hospitalisation rate and mortality in COPD patients with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure: A structured literature review.

2025· article· W7106618712 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCOPDObservational studyMortality ratePopulationNoninvasive ventilationSystematic reviewVentilation (architecture)MEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: COPD with Chronic Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure (CHRF) has a significant impact on hospitalisation rate and mortality. NIV is a clinically established home-based intervention; however, its impact on hospitalisation rate and mortality remains unclear. Review Aim: This review aims to investigate existing literature to establish the impact of adherence to home NIV on reducing hospitalisation rate and mortality among COPD patients with CHRF. Method: A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Embase from May to June 2024. Studies were screened based on predefined inclusion criteria, focusing on home NIV adherence and patient outcomes. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Tool and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NIH) quality assessment tool were used. Results: Six observational studies, involving 10,206 participants, assessed the impact of adherence to home NIV on hospitalisation rate and mortality. Five studies were considered high quality and one was moderate quality. Adherence to home NIV for at least four hours per day was associated with a significant reduction in hospitalisation rate and mortality. Conclusion: Adherence to home NIV significantly reduces hospitalisation rate and mortality in COPD patients with CHRF. These findings recommend the adoption of home NIV as a standard care practice for this population and emphasise the importance of patient compliance to maximise the therapeutic benefits of NIV. This review recommends that future research conducts additional RCTs to reinforce its initial findings.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→