MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1562591156 · doi:10.3171/2015.3.peds14630

Treatment of posthemorrhagic ventricular dilation in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes and complications

2015· review· en· W1562591156 on OpenAlexaff
Jetan H. Badhiwala, Chris J. Hong, Farshad Nassiri, Brian Y. Hong, Jay Riva-Cambrin, Abhaya V. Kulkarni

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversity of OttawaHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntraventricular hemorrhageHydrocephalusMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryShunt (medical)VentriculitisAnesthesiaSurgeryIntensive care medicineInternal medicineGestational age

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECT The optimal clinical management of intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) and posthemorrhagic ventricular dilation (PHVD)/posthemorrhagic hydrocephalus (PHH) in premature infants remains unclear. A common approach involves temporary treatment of hydrocephalus in these patients with a ventriculosubgaleal shunt (VSGS), ventricular access device (VAD), or external ventricular drain (EVD) until it becomes evident that the patient needs and can tolerate permanent CSF diversion (i.e., ventriculoperitoneal shunt). The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to provide a robust and comprehensive summary of the published literature regarding the clinical outcomes and complications of these 3 techniques as temporizing measures in the management of prematurity-related PHVD/PHH. METHODS The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library for studies published through December 2013 on the use of VSGSs, VADs, and/or EVDs as temporizing devices for the treatment of hydrocephalus following IVH in the premature neonate. Data pertaining to patient demographic data, study methods, interventions, and outcomes were extracted from eligible articles. For each of the 3 types of temporizing device, the authors performed meta-analyses examining 6 outcomes of interest, which were rates of 1) obstruction; 2) infection; 3) arrest of hydrocephalus (i.e., permanent shunt independence); 4) mortality; 5) good neurodevelopmental outcome; and 6) revision. RESULTS Thirty-nine studies, representing 1502 patients, met eligibility criteria. All of the included articles were observational studies; 36 were retrospective and 3 were prospective designs. Nine studies (n = 295) examined VSGSs, 24 (n = 962) VADs, and 9 (n = 245) EVDs. Pooled rates of outcome for VSGS, VAD, and EVD, respectively, were 9.6%, 7.3%, and 6.8% for obstruction; 9.2%, 9.5%, and 6.7% for infection; 12.2%, 10.8%, and 47.3% for revision; 13.9%, 17.5%, and 31.8% for arrest of hydrocephalus; 12.1%, 15.3%, and 19.1% for death; and 58.7%, 50.1%, and 56.1% for good neurodevelopmental outcome. CONCLUSIONS This study provides robust estimates of outcomes for the most common temporizing treatments for IVH in premature infants. With few exceptions, the range of outcomes was similar for VSGS, VAD, and EVD.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.034
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations73
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery PediatricsSame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207