MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081262281 · doi:10.1097/ta.0b013e3182a1fea2

Pericardiocentesis in trauma

2013· review· en· W2081262281 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

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma Management and Diagnosis
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPericardiocentesisMedicineSurgeryPericardial effusion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pericardiocentesis (PCC) had been taught as a mandatory skill in the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS®) course as a bridge to definitive surgical therapy for traumatic pericardial tamponade since its inception in 1978. Immediate thoracotomy for penetrating trauma to the heart and chest has resulted in the decreased use of PCC in trauma. PCC is now offered as an optional skill in the ninth edition of the ATLS®. A review of the literature regarding the use and effectiveness of PCC in traumatic pericardial tamponade in the modern era is necessary to better define its current role in trauma care. METHODS: Scientific publications from 1970 to 2010 involving PCC after trauma were identified. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses was used. Human studies describing acute traumatic tamponade were included. Publications involving nontraumatic or chronic pericardial tamponade from effusions caused by inflammatory, infectious, or neoplastic etiology were excluded. Publications were categorized by level of evidence. RESULTS: Of the 135 publications identified, 27 were included, composing of 2,094 trauma patients with suspected cardiac tamponade. The reported use of PCC decreased from 45.9% of patients in the period 1970 to 1979 down to 6.4% of patients in the period between 2000 and 2010 (p < 0.05). Reported rates describing the use of PCC as the sole intervention decreased from 13.7% in the period 1970 to 1979 to 2.1% in the period 2000 to 2010 (p < 0.05). Survival analysis after PCC was possible for 380 patients. Overall survival following PCC was 83.4% (n = 317) and 91.8% (n = 145) when used as the sole intervention. In patients who received PCC then thoracotomy, survival rate was 79.5% (n = 178). CONCLUSION: Studies on the use of PCC for trauma are limited and biased toward survivors. The reported survival rate is high. There remains a limited role for PCC in nontrauma centers where definitive surgical management is not immediately available and transport time to a higher level of care facility supports the use of temporary decompression by PCC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, level III.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.324 · 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