MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018704882 · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000000255

Chronic Subdural Hematoma Management

2013· review· en· W2018704882 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgery · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurosurgical Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyRandomized controlled trialCochrane LibraryCraniotomyRelative riskSurgeryPercutaneousHematomaMEDLINEConfidence intervalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of multiple treatment modalities for the management of chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) patients. BACKGROUND: Current management strategies of CSDHs remain widely controversial. Treatment options vary from medical therapy and bedside procedures to major operative techniques. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), EMBASE, CINAHL, Google scholar, and the Cochrane library from January 1970 through February 2013 for randomized and observational studies reporting one or more outcome following the management of symptomatic patients with CSDH. Independent reviewers evaluated the quality of studies and abstracted the data on the safety and efficacy of percutaneous bedside twist-drill drainage, single or multiple operating room burr holes, craniotomy, corticosteroids as a main or adjuvant therapy, use of drains, irrigation of the hematoma cavity, bed rest, and treatment of recurrences following CSDH management. Mortality, morbidity, cure, and recurrence rates were examined for each management option. Randomized, prospective, retrospective, and overall observational studies were analyzed separately. Pooled estimates, confidence intervals (CIs), and relative risks (RRs) were calculated for all outcomes using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 34,829 patients from 250 studies met our eligibility criteria. Sixteen trials were randomized, and the remaining 234 were observational. We included our unpublished single center series of 834 patients. When comparing percutaneous bedside drainage to operating room burr hole evacuation, there was no significant difference in mortality (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.46-1.05; P = 0.09), morbidity (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.2-1.01; P = 0.05), cure (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.98-1.11; P = 0.15), and recurrence rates (RR, 1; 95% CI, 0.66-1.52; P = 0.99). Higher morbidity was associated with the adjuvant use of corticosteroids (RR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.54-2.45; P = 0.005), with no significant improvement in recurrence and cure rates. The use of drains following CSDH drainage resulted in a significant decrease in recurrences (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.76; P = 0.002). Craniotomy was associated with higher complication rates if considered initially (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.04-1.74; P = 0.01); however, craniotomy was superior to minimally invasive procedures in the management of recurrences (RR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05-0.85; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous bedside twist-drill drainage is a relatively safe and effective first-line management option. These findings may result in potential health cost savings and eliminate perioperative risks related to general anesthetic.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.454
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.017 · 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