MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076973095 · doi:10.1097/jsm.0000000000000065

Is Intramuscular Pressure a Valid Diagnostic Criterion for Chronic Exertional Compartment Syndrome?

2013· letter· en· W2076973095 on OpenAlexaff
Peter M. Tiidus

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of Sport Medicine · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMuscle and Compartmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCompartment (ship)Physical therapyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare the intramuscular pressure (IMP) of the tibialis anterior in healthy persons under several exercise conditions with the IMP diagnostic criteria in use for diagnosing chronic exertional compartment syndrome (CECS). DATA SOURCES: A search of MEDLINE for the period 1966 to March 2010 used the words "intramuscular," "intracompartment," "anterior compartment," and "anterior tibial compartment" linked with "pressure." Reference lists of relevant studies were searched for further articles. STUDY SELECTION: Articles published in English that tested IMP in the tibialis anterior in asymptomatic humans were included if they used no interventions before or during IMP testing. Studies were excluded if data were given as a percentage of IMP or if the data could not be extracted for the tibialis anterior compartment alone. From 515 articles identified, 38 studies met selection criteria DATA EXTRACTION: : Details of the studies included IMP measurement technique, timing of measurement (before, during, and/or after exercise), type and duration of exercise, the number of compartments measured, and participants' ages. Mean or median pressure was recorded in mm Hg. DIAGNOSTIC STANDARD: Criteria for the upper limit of normal pressure under different conditions were the Pedowitz criterion for preexercise IMP (15 mm Hg), the Puranen criterion for IMP during exercise (50 mm Hg), the Styf criterion for relaxation pressure (30-55 mm Hg), and the Pedowitz criteria for mean 1-minute postexercise and 5-minutes postexercise pressures (30 mm Hg and 50 mm Hg, respectively). MAIN RESULTS: Exercise was mostly treadmill walking/running (duration, 1.5-120 min) or ankle dorsiflexion (duration, 10 sec-20 min). Methods of measuring IMP varied from study to study. The lowest mean IMP was identified preexercise at rest (range, 0-20 mm Hg). Five of the 34 studies found a higher mean resting pressure than the criterion (15 mm Hg). Mean pressure during exercise (10 studies, 9 of running, with durations of 5-20 min) varied between 23 mm Hg and 66 mm Hg. Two of these studies found a higher mean peak pressure during exercise than the criterion (50 mm Hg). Mean relaxation IMP, measured in 9 studies, was approximately 25 mm Hg in the 1 treadmill study in which it was measured, whereas studies of dorsiflexion found a range of approximately 5 to 15 mm Hg. All the studies found lower mean relaxation IMP than the criterion (35-50 mm Hg). One of 11 studies and 1 of 10 studies found the mean postexercise IMP after 1 minute and 5 minutes to be above the criteria of 30 mm Hg and 20 mm Hg, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The limits of anterior tibialis IMP before, during, and after exercise that are used as diagnostic criteria for CECS would include many asymptomatic persons. Intramuscular pressure values were not valid criteria for the presence of the syndrome.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.314 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations19
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of Sport MedicineSame topicMuscle and Compartmental DisordersFrench-language works237,207