MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1991474504 · doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000373199.79462.21

Endoscopic Third Ventriculostomy Vs Cerebrospinal Fluid Shunt in the Treatment of Hydrocephalus in Children

2010· article· en· W1991474504 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueNeurosurgery · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Établissements canadiensSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineEndoscopic third ventriculostomyHydrocephalusProportional hazards modelShunt (medical)VentriculostomySurgeryPropensity score matchingSurvival analysisNeurosurgerySurvival rateRelative riskConfidence intervalInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In Brief BACKGROUND Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) has preferentially been offered to patients with more favorable prognostic features compared with shunt. OBJECTIVE To use advanced statistical methods to adjust for treatment selection bias to determine whether ETV survival is superior to shunt survival once the bias of patient-related prognostic factors is removed. METHODS An international cohort of children (≤ 19 years of age) with newly diagnosed hydrocephalus treated with ETV (n = 489) or shunt (n = 720) was analyzed. We used propensity score adjustment techniques to account for 2 important patient prognostic factors: age and cause of hydrocephalus. Cox regression survival analysis was performed to compare time-to-treatment failure in an unadjusted model and 3 propensity score—adjusted models, each of which would adjust for the imbalance in prognostic factors. RESULTS In the unadjusted Cox model, the ETV failure rate was lower than the shunt failure rate from the immediate postoperative phase and became even more favorable with longer duration from surgery. Once patient prognostic factors were corrected for in the 3 adjusted models, however, the early failure rate for ETV was higher than that for shunt. It was only after about 3 months after surgery did the ETV failure rate become lower than the shunt failure rate. CONCLUSIONS The relative risk of ETV failure is initially higher than that for shunt, but after about 3 months, the relative risk becomes progressively lower for ETV. Therefore, after the early high-risk period of ETV failure, a patient could experience a long-term treatment survival advantage compared with shunt. It might take several years, however, to realize this benefit. BACKGROUND: Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) has more favorable prognostic features compared with shunt. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether ETV survival is superior to shunt survival. METHODS: An international cohort of children (≤ 19 years of age) with newly diagnosed hydrocephalus treated with ETV (n = 489) or shunt (n = 720) was analyzed. We used propensity score adjustment techniques to account for 2 important patient prognostic factors: age and cause of hydrocephalus. Cox regression survival analysis was performed to compare time-to-treatment failure in an unadjusted model and 3 propensity score—adjusted models, each of which would adjust for the imbalance in prognostic factors. RESULTS: In the unadjusted Cox model, the ETV failure rate was lower than the shunt failure rate from the immediate postoperative phase and became even more favorable with longer duration from surgery. Once patient prognostic factors were corrected for in the 3 adjusted models, however, the early failure rate for ETV was higher than that for shunt; about 3 months after surgery the ETV failure rate was lower than the shunt failure rate. CONCLUSIONS: The relative risk of ETV failure is initially higher than that for shunt, but after about 3 months, the relative risk becomes progressively lower for ETV.

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,135
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,250
Écart entre enseignants0,236 · 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