MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030807629 · doi:10.1097/bsd.0b013e31826eacae

A Pilot Evaluation of the Role of Bracing in Stable Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures Without Neurological Deficit

2012· article· en· W2030807629 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed F. Shamji, Darren M. Roffey, Darryl K. Young, Rudy Reindl, Eugene K. Wai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreToronto Western HospitalOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaMontreal General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBraceRadiographyCobb angleSagittal planeScoliosisDeformitySurgeryBracingRandomized controlled trialOrthopedic surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, 2-center, observer-blinded, randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: Investigate clinical and radiologic outcomes of bracing versus no-bracing in the treatment of stable thoracolumbar burst fractures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Management of thoracolumbar burst fractures depends upon clinical presentation of neurological deficit and radiographic features of fracture severity. Neurologically intact patients with mild deformity and biomechanical stability may be treated with conservative therapy. METHODS: Patients with stable (AO type A3), single level, thoracolumbar burst fractures between T12 and L2 with no neurological deficit were randomized to nonoperative treatment with a customized thoracolumbosacral orthosis (TLSO) or no-brace. Self-reported clinical outcomes of pain, disability, and health-related quality of life, and radiographic outcomes of kyphotic progression and loss of vertebral height, assessed by 2 independent reviewers blinded to treatment group, were measured at 6 months follow-up. RESULTS: Twenty-three consecutive eligible patients were included (TLSO: n=12; no-brace: n=11). There were no between-group differences regarding level of injury (P=0.75) and baseline spine geometry including fractional canal compromise (P=0.49), anterior loss of vertebral body height (P=0.28), and sagittal Cobb angle (P=0.13). In-hospital stay was significantly shorter in the no-brace group (mean: 2.8±3.0 d) compared with the TLSO group (mean: 6.3±2.1 d; P=0.004). At follow-up there were no differences in anterior loss of vertebral body height (TLSO: 12.5%±10.2% vs. no-brace: 11.9%±8.1%; P=0.88), kyphotic progression (TLSO: 5.3±4.4 degrees vs. no-brace 5.2±3.6 degrees; P=0.93), adverse events, or self-reported clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Neurologically intact patients with stable thoracolumbar burst fractures treated with or without bracing had similar radiographic and clinical outcomes at 6 months follow-up. The no-brace group had shorter in-hospital lengths of stay. Conservative therapy involving early mobilization without brace immobilization may be warranted. Further studies with a larger series of patients and longer follow-up are required for conclusive findings.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations60
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Spinal Disorders & TechniquesSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207