MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2074462052 · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8749.2010.03748.x

Cerebral sinus venous thrombosis in children: an urgent need for multicentre trials

2010· letter· en· W2074462052 sur OpenAlexaff
Mahendranath Moharir

Notice bibliographique

RevueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2010
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis
Établissements canadiensHospital for Sick Children
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineRadiologyMagnetic resonance imagingVenous thrombosisThrombosisSurgery

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Grunt et al.1 contribute useful information on childhood cerebral sinovenous thrombosis (CSVT), a condition that occurs probably more frequently than we think. CSVT is increasingly reported in children but the diagnosis of CSVT is still difficult. It is often not suspected clinically owing to non-specific presenting features. Radiological diagnosis is not easy, as routine computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of the brain can miss clots in the intracranial venous system, particularly in neonates and in the early stages of the disease. Accurate diagnosis, therefore, demands dedicated intracranial venous imaging techniques such as computed tomography venography (CTV) and magnetic resonance venography (MRV), each having its own advantages and disadvantages. In neonates and sometimes in infants, physiological factors such as skull bone molding, slow venous flow, and high hematocrit result in over- and underestimation of CSVT in the routine time-of-flight MRV. Advanced venous imaging techniques like multislice CTV, contrast-enhanced MRV, phase contrast MRV, and susceptibility weighted-imaging are employed in adults but have not been validated in children. At our centre, multislice CTV, which is easier to obtain in sick patients owing to short study time and lack of need for sedation, has sometimes demonstrated intraluminal venous clots better than MRV (unpublished material), although radiation exposure is a concern. Cranial ultrasound is routinely used in neonates, but has yet to be systematically studied in CSVT. Overall, imaging research in pediatric CSVT is an important but overlooked area that merits careful study, as the establishment of uniform and consistently reproducible imaging techniques are vital for definitive diagnosis. Children with CSVT are being increasingly treated with anticoagulant therapy based on adult practice due to the absence of pediatric clinical trials. Treatment in neonates is controversial and consensus-based guidelines give divergent views.2,3 The geographic location seems to determine which neonate with CSVT will receive anticoagulant therapy.4 The main reasons why most neonates are not given anticoagulation therapy are lack of safety data, high frequency of intracranial hemorrhage at diagnosis, and lack of efficacy data. However, a recently published study from our centre has documented the safety of anticoagulant therapy in children, including neonates5 with only a 6% major hemorrhagic complication rate that is comparable to the rate for systemic venous thrombosis (∼5%).6 Although the presence of intracranial hemorrhage in CSVT often precludes the use of anticoagulant therapy in children, most adults with intracranial hemorrhage receive anticoagulant therapy7 as intracranial hemorrhage is considered to be an expected consequence of the natural pathophysiology of CSVT and therefore not an absolute contraindication to treatment. This might also apply to children and neonates,8 but more data are needed. Our study documented a high rate of CSVT propagation (thrombus progression) in untreated (35%) compared with treated patients (5%) and faster thrombus recanalization rates in neonates compared with older children. CSVT propagation was associated with increased risk of parenchymal injury at all ages and worse outcome in older children. All neonates had silent propagation which leads our group to believe that untreated pediatric patients should be closely monitored clinically and radiologically for thrombus propagation. Our study was inadequately powered and limited by selection bias to assess treatment effect on clinical outcome. The study by Grunt et al. reports a positive influence of anticoagulant therapy on the outcome of CSVT. Though encouraging, this needs to be interpreted with caution owing to limitations such as small sample size (hence the large confidence interval), lack of uniform anticoagulant therapy protocols, and variability in imaging modalities across centres which have been acknowledged by the authors. A prospective multicentre, multinational clinical trial of anticoagulant therapy for neonatal CSVT appears imminent as the outcome is poor in neonates compared with older children, which is a consistent observation across most studies including the Grunt et al. study. We now have the safety and outcome data to potentially consider this trial. However, the main challenges for this endeavour include a large sample size compounded by the relative rarity of the condition and the choice of the optimal imaging modality for diagnosis. The International Pediatric Stroke Study Group, a growing consortium led by several experts in the field of pediatric stroke, appears well-placed to spearhead this trial.

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)0,096
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,124
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: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,096
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,505

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0960,124
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0110,006
Bibliométrie0,0020,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0060,008
Science ouverte0,0030,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0120,002

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 Opus0,043
Tête enseignante GPT0,305
Écart entre enseignants0,261 · 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
GenreCommentaire

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

En bref

Citations10
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologyMême sujetCerebral Venous Sinus ThrombosisTravaux en français237 207