A critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines on surgical treatments for spinal cord injury
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a global health problem with a heavy economic burden. Surgery is considered as the cornerstone of SCI treatment. Although various organizations have formulated different guidelines on surgical treatment for SCI, the methodological quality of these guidelines has still not been critically appraised. PURPOSE: We aim to systematically review and appraise the current guidelines on surgical treatments of SCI and summarize the related recommendations with the quality evaluation of supporting evidence. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Medline, Cochrane library, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar, and online guideline databases were searched from January 2000 to January 2022. The most updated and recent guidelines containing evidence-based or consensus-based recommendations and established by authoritative associations were included. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition instrument containing 6 domains (eg, applicability) was used to appraise the included guidelines. An evidence-grading scale (ie, level of evidence, LOE) was utilized to evaluate the quality of supporting evidence. The supporting evidence was categorized as A (the best quality), B, C, and D (the worst quality). RESULTS: Ten guidelines from 2008 to 2020 were included, however, all of them acquired the lowest scores in the domain of applicability among all the six domains. Fourteen recommendations (eight evidence-based recommendations and six consensus-based recommendations) were totally involved. The SCI types of the population and timing of surgery were studied. Regarding the SCI types of the population, eight guidelines (8/10, 80%), two guidelines (2/10, 20%), and three guidelines (3/10, 30%) recommended surgical treatment for patients with SCI without further clarification of characteristics, incomplete SCI, and traumatic central cord syndrome (TCCS), respectively. Besides, one guideline (1/10, 10%) recommended against surgery for patients with SCI without radiographic abnormality. Regarding the timing of surgery, there were eight guidelines (8/10, 80%), two guidelines (2/10, 20%), and two guidelines (2/10, 20%) with recommendations for patients with SCI without further clarification of characteristics, incomplete SCI, and TCCS, respectively. For patients with SCI without further clarification of characteristics, all eight guidelines (8/8, 100%) recommended for early surgery and five guidelines (5/8, 62.5%) recommended for the specific timing, which ranged from within 8 hours to within 48 hours. For patients with incomplete SCI, two guidelines (2/2, 100%) recommended for early surgery, without specific time thresholds. For patients with TCCS, one guideline (1/2, 50%) recommended for surgery within 24 hours, and another guideline (1/2, 50%) simply recommended for early surgery. The LOE was B in eight recommendations, C in three recommendations, and D in three recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: We remind the reader that even the highest quality guidelines often have significant flaws (eg, poor applicability), and some of the conclusions are based on consensus recommendations which is certainly less than ideal. With these caveats, we found most included guidelines (8/10, 80%) recommended early surgical treatment for patients after SCI, which was consistent between evidence-based recommendations and consensus-based recommendations. Regarding the specific timing of surgery, the recommended time threshold did vary, but it was usually within 8 to 48 hours, where the LOE was B to D.
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 | 0,009 | 0,099 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| 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 ».