MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1975474460 · doi:10.1111/dmcn.12175

Deep brain stimulation in cerebral palsy: an opportunity for collaborative research

2013· editorial· en· W1975474460 sur OpenAlexaff
Peter Rosenbaum

Notice bibliographique

RevueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2013
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueNeurological disorders and treatments
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCerebral palsyRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionBlindnessPsychologyMedicineClinical trialPediatricsPsychiatrySurgeryOptometry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Bill Silverman was one of the fathers of modern neonatology. He was also considered by many to be a demanding colleague. He challenged his peers and himself to embrace modern scientific methods to address the clinical problems we face. His poignant and powerful book Retrolental Fibroplasia: A Modern Parable1 describes the years of rancorous, opinion-based debate about whether retrolental fibroplasia, which led to blindness in over 10 000 preterm infants in the 1940s and 1950s, was caused by excess or insufficient supplemental oxygen. The situation was only resolved when a large collaborative randomized clinical trial was undertaken and a definitive answer reached – after which debate essentially ended. In the modern era of evidence-based medicine, most of us would hope to be guided as much as possible by the best evidence. Sadly, there are still too few available ‘facts’ in our field, and even these can often be viewed though many lenses and variably interpreted. One reason for this reality is that unless one pays careful attention to the details of each report about, for example, a new treatment, one can too easily miss nuances that significantly influenced what was done, and found, and reported. This is in part because there are so many sources of variation that can have an impact on the outcome of a treatment – the age and developmental stage of the children treated; their level of impairment; the nature, timing and details of their treatments; supplemental and adjunctive interventions; the timing and nature of assessment of the effects of the treatment - the list can go on and on. Unlike the field of childhood cancer, we have not been particularly effective in developmental disability in pooling our intellectual and clinical resources to address new ideas (and of course old problems) patiently, collaboratively, and systematically. One such opportunity is now at hand, namely the collaborative international exploration of deep brain stimulation (DBS) as an intervention for children with movement disorders associated with cerebral palsy (CP). Koy et al.2 have published a recent meta-analysis of 20 studies of the management of the dyskinetic type of CP (apparently all in adults) using DBS. The main common outcome of interest was clinical assessment of dystonia using several tools. After noting that these 20 reports involved only 68 participants in total, the authors comment ‘Most articles were case reports reflecting great variability in the score [of the outcome measure] and duration of follow-up.’ The early and uncritical adoption of an exciting idea happens far too easily. Our field is replete with examples of apparently good ideas that have, like fireworks, exploded on the scene, illuminated the ground below, elicited gasps from the viewers, and then quickly disappeared in a puff of smoke. In most cases new ideas are never subjected to proper study to help us find whether there are benefits to be harvested from the new approaches. Even in the few situations in which new ideas have been assessed with robust randomized clinical trials (such as in selective dorsal rhizotomy in CP)3-5 the surgical and post-operative management regimens were importantly distinct one from another, making meta-analysis challenging.6 We may have thrown some babies out with the bathwater! It is essential that cooperative planning and aggregation of collective experience in CP be undertaken before an apparently ‘good idea’ like DBS simply becomes another treatment of uncertain value. Without such efforts DBS may be offered by well-intentioned practitioners without detailed understanding about whether the intervention does more good than harm, and without knowing for whom it works better and less well. Of course there must be both academic leadership within the field, and human and financial resources that make it possible for people from several centres (and in this case from several countries) to map out a 5- to 10-year proposal for thoughtful and planned observation, description, data collection, and long-term follow-up of people who are treated and studied in a limited number of academic centres. The Cerebral Palsy International Research Foundation (Princeton Junction, NJ, USA) is facilitating the establishment of a DBS in CP registry with the intent of an eventual international study of this procedure with uniform selection criteria, operative techniques (including brain localizations), outcome measurement, and appropriate follow-up. An experienced collaborative group from Europe, Israel, and North America has met to determine the data elements for the registry. Once established, any centre will be welcome to contribute cases to the registry. Data from the registry will be essential in establishing the protocol for an adequately powered prospective clinical trial. Let us hope that this experience sets a new standard for the whole field. The author is a member of the board, and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee, of Cerebral Palsy International Research Foundation (CPIRF). The opinions expressed in this editorial are his alone.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,149
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,191
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,149
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,789

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,1490,191
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,004
Bibliométrie0,0040,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,013
Communication savante0,0150,025
Science ouverte0,0050,023
Intégrité de la recherche0,0190,023
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,068
Tête enseignante GPT0,372
Écart entre enseignants0,304 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologyMême sujetNeurological disorders and treatmentsTravaux en français237 207