MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017000072 · doi:10.3109/15563650.2014.946994

Extracorporeal treatment for acetaminophen poisoning: Recommendations from the EXTRIP workgroup

2014· review· en· W2017000072 on OpenAlexaff
Sophie Gosselin, David N. Juurlink, Jan T. Kielstein, Marc Ghannoum, Valéry Lavergne, Thomas D. Nolin, Robert S. Hoffman

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Toxicology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicDrug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and Protection
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkgroupMedicineAcetaminophenExtracorporealObservational studyIntensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup was created to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTR) in poisoning and the results are presented here for acetaminophen (APAP). METHODS: After a systematic review of the literature, a subgroup selected and reviewed the articles and summarized clinical and toxicokinetic data in order to propose structured voting statements following a pre-determined format. A two-round modified Delphi method was chosen to reach a consensus on voting statements, and the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement. Following discussion, a second vote determined the final recommendations. RESULTS: Twenty-four articles (1 randomized controlled trial, 1 observational study, 2 pharmacokinetic studies, and 20 case reports or case series) were identified, yielding an overall very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Clinical data on 135 patients and toxicokinetic data on 54 patients were analyzed. Twenty-three fatalities were reviewed. The workgroup agreed that N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is the mainstay of treatment, and that ECTR is not warranted in most cases of APAP poisoning. However, given that APAP is dialyzable, the workgroup agreed that ECTR is suggested in patients with excessively large overdoses who display features of mitochondrial dysfunction. This is reflected by early development of altered mental status and severe metabolic acidosis prior to the onset of hepatic failure. Specific recommendations for ECTR include an APAP concentration over 1000 mg/L if NAC is not administered (1D), signs of mitochondrial dysfunction and an APAP concentration over 700 mg/L (4630 mmol/L) if NAC is not administered (1D) and signs of mitochondrial dysfunction and an APAP concentration over 900 mg/L (5960 mmol/L) if NAC is administered (1D). Intermittent hemodialysis (HD) is the preferred ECTR modality in APAP poisoning (1D). CONCLUSION: APAP is amenable to extracorporeal removal. Due to the efficacy of NAC, ECTR is reserved for rare situations when the efficacy of NAC has not been definitively demonstrated.

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)0.118
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.146
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1180.146
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.009
Bibliometrics0.0180.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0090.008
Research integrity0.0140.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.645
GPT teacher head0.605
Teacher spread0.040 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations127
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ToxicologySame topicDrug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and ProtectionFrench-language works237,207