Timing of Decompression in Patients with Acute Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction To perform an evidence synthesis of the literature assessing the comparative effectiveness, safety and cost effectiveness of early decompression (≤ 24 hours) versus later decompression (>24 hours) in adults with acute traumatic spinal cord injury. Material and Methods A systematic search was conducted for literature published through November 6th, 2014. Included studies were critically appraised and GRADE methods were used to determine the overall strength of evidence. Based on clinical expert opinion, an improvement of two or more grades for Frankel or ASIA grades or 5 point improvement in ASIA Motor Score was considered a priori to represent clinically meaningful improvement. Results Six studies met inclusion criteria. All but one was considered to be a moderately high risk of bias. Single studies in cervical SCI, thoracolumbar SCI, cervical and thoracolumbar SCI, acute central cord injury without instability were identified, and two studies report across SCI levels. Due to the heterogeneity across studies (injury level, measures used, and clinical characteristics), pooling of data was not done. No studies of conservative management met inclusion criteria. No full economic studies or studies of patient preferences or values were identified. Across studies and injury levels, early surgical decompression, defined as surgery ≤ 24 hours of injury, was not consistently associated statistically with clinically important improvement in neurological status. (low to very low strength of evidence) Isolated studies reported statistically significant and clinically important improvement at 6 months for cervical injury and following discharge from inpatient rehabilitation but not at other time points in a population comprised of injury at any level; another study reported a statistically significant 6 point improvement in ASIA Improvement Score only among patients with AIS B, C, or D, but not for those with AIS A. (very low strength of evidence). In one study of acute traumatic cord injury without instability, a clinically and statistically meaningful improvement in total motor scores was seen at six months but not 12 months and there were no statistical differences in ASIA Impairment Scale up to 12 months. (very low strength of evidence) Only one of three studies found a shorter length of hospital stay associated with early surgical decompression. Safety and harms were reported in only three studies; although no statistical differences between early and late decompression were seen, including for mortality, neurologic deterioration, pneumonia or pressure ulcers, studies were underpowered to detect differences particularly for rare outcomes. Conclusion The overall strength (quality) of evidence across studies was low to very low that early decompression may lead to clinically important improvement in neurologic status in some instances. For studies considering cervical SCI alone and thoracolumbar SCI alone, the overall quality (strength) of evidence was low. For studies involving a combination of cervical, thoracic and lumbar SCI the strength of the same conclusion was very low. Although no statistical or clinically significant differences were noted between early and late groups, firm conclusions regarding the safety of early versus delayed surgical decompression are difficult given small sample sizes and rare events.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».