MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1482661501

Is clinical examination an accurate indicator of raised intra-abdominal pressure in critically injured patients?

2000· article· en· W1482661501 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew W. Kirkpatrick, F D Brenneman, Richard F. McLean, T Rapanos, Bernard R. Boulanger

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Surgery and Complications
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePositive predicative valuePhysical examinationPredictive valuePredictive value of testsProspective cohort studyUrinary bladderAbdominal traumaUrinary systemInternal medicineSurgeryBlunt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate of elevated intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) and to evaluate the accuracy of clinical abdominal examination in the assessment of IAP in the critically injured trauma patient. DESIGN: A prospective blinded study. SETTING: The medical-surgical critical care unit of a university-affiliated regional adult trauma centre. PATIENTS: Forty-two adult blunt trauma victims, who had a mean injury severity score of 36. INTERVENTIONS: Urinary bladder pressure was measured daily and classified as normal (10 mm Hg or less), elevated (more than 10 mm Hg) or significantly elevated (more than 15 mm Hg). A blinded clinical assessment of abdominal pressure was concurrently performed and recorded as elevated or normal. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy and the positive and negative predictive values of the 2 interventions in identifying elevated IAP. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (50%) had an elevated IAP at some point during the study. Of the 147 bladder pressure measurements done in these 42 patients, 47 (32%) were more than 10 mm Hg and 16 (11%) were more than 15 mm Hg. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of clinical abdominal examination for identifying elevated IAP were 40%, 94%, 76%, 77% and 77%, respectively. Clinical abdominal examination had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of 56%, 87%, 35%, 94% and 84% respectively, for significantly elevated IAP. CONCLUSIONS: Urinary bladder pressure was commonly elevated among our population of critically injured adults. Compared with bladder pressure measurements, clinical abdominal assessment showed poor sensitivity and accuracy for elevated IAP. These findings suggest that more routine measurements of bladder pressure in patients at risk for intra-abdominal hypertension should be performed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations233
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicAbdominal Surgery and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207