Survey of Cervical Spine Research Society Members on the Use of High-Dose Steroids for Acute Spinal Cord Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A questionnaire survey. OBJECTIVE: To characterize surgeons' current perspectives on the administration of methylprednisolone for acute spinal cord injury (SCI) and determine how this has changed during the last 7 years. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The determinants of and complications associated with off-label steroid use for acute SCI remain controversial. METHODS: A survey was sent to surgeon members of the Cervical Spine Research Society requesting information regarding their use of steroids for acute SCI. Determinants included surgeons' specialty, trauma center level, number of SCIs treated per year, severity of injury, and location of injury. These results were compared across groups as well as with a historical control. RESULTS: In the case of cervical complete and incomplete SCIs, 47.4% and 56.4% of respondents, respectively, reported using steroids. For complete and incomplete thoracolumbar spine injuries, the usage rate was 46.2% and 55.1%, respectively. There has been a significant (P < 0.0001) decrease in the number of surgeons using high-dose steroids in the treatment of acute SCIs when compared with a previous report in 2006 (56% vs. 89%).More than 80% of respondents reported sepsis, active gastrointestinal bleeding, and SCI occurring earlier than 8 hours as contraindications. Seventy-one percent of respondents reported observing complications from the use of steroids, and 76.3% thought that the complications were severe enough to limit steroid use. Of the surgeons who used steroids for SCI, 26% thought that steroids improved neurological recovery, 19.2% used steroids to adhere to institutional protocol, and 25.6% stated they did not think steroids were beneficial but used them because of medicolegal concerns. CONCLUSION: There has been a significant decrease in the number of surgeons using high-dose steroids for acute SCIs. Sepsis, gastrointestinal bleeding, and an injury occurring more than 8 hours prior to presentation were agreed upon as contraindications to steroid use.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".