MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4250550123 · doi:10.1055/s-0036-1583155

Timing of Decompression in Patients with Acute Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review

2016· review· en· W4250550123 sur OpenAlexaff
Michael G. Fehlings, Jefferson R. Wilson, Paul M. Arnold, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Mohammed F. Shamji, Thomas E. Mroz, Andrea C. Skelly, Jens R. Chapman, Lindsay Tetreault, Bizhan Aarabi, Steve Casha

Notice bibliographique

RevueGlobal Spine Journal · 2016
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSpinal Cord Injury Research
Établissements canadiensFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineSpinal cord injuryDecompressionRehabilitationPhysical therapyEvidence-based medicinePopulationSystematic reviewSurgeryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMEDLINESpinal cord

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

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 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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
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: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,411
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0050,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,056
Tête enseignante GPT0,454
Écart entre enseignants0,398 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

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

En bref

Citations8
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueGlobal Spine JournalMême sujetSpinal Cord Injury ResearchTravaux en français237 207