MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096844273 · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-14-141

Efficacy and safety of active negative pressure peritoneal therapy for reducing the systemic inflammatory response after damage control laparotomy (the Intra-peritoneal Vacuum Trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

2013· article· en· W2096844273 on OpenAlexafffund
Derek J. Roberts, Craig N. Jenne, Chad G. Ball, Corina Tiruta, Caroline Léger, Zhengwen Xiao, Peter Faris, Paul B. McBeth, Christopher J. Doig, Christine R Skinner, Stacy Ruddell, Paul Kubes

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Surgery and Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSt. Paul's HospitalFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Calgary
FundersKinetic ConceptsAlberta InnovatesUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMedicineLaparotomyNegative-pressure wound therapyRandomized controlled trialDamage control surgeryClinical endpointAbdomenRandomizationSurgerySystemic inflammatory response syndromeSepsisPeritoneal cavityPeritoneal fluidAbdominal surgeryClinical trialDamage controlResuscitationInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Damage control laparotomy, or abbreviated initial laparotomy followed by temporary abdominal closure (TAC), intensive care unit resuscitation, and planned re-laparotomy, is frequently used to manage intra-abdominal bleeding and contamination among critically ill or injured adults. Animal data suggest that TAC techniques that employ negative pressure to the peritoneal cavity may reduce the systemic inflammatory response and associated organ injury. The primary objective of this study is to determine if use of a TAC dressing that affords active negative pressure peritoneal therapy, the ABThera Open Abdomen Negative Pressure Therapy System, reduces the extent of the systemic inflammatory response after damage control laparotomy for intra-abdominal sepsis or injury as compared to a commonly used TAC method that provides potentially less efficient peritoneal negative pressure, the Barker's vacuum pack. METHODS/DESIGN: The Intra-peritoneal Vacuum Trial will be a single-center, randomized controlled trial. Adults will be intraoperatively allocated to TAC with either the ABThera or Barker's vacuum pack after the decision has been made by the attending surgeon to perform a damage control laparotomy. The study will use variable block size randomization. On study days 1, 2, 3, 7, and 28, blood will be collected. Whenever possible, peritoneal fluid will also be collected at these time points from the patient's abdomen or TAC device. Luminex technology will be used to quantify the concentrations of 65 mediators relevant to the inflammatory response in peritoneal fluid and plasma. The primary endpoint is the difference in the plasma concentration of the pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-6 at 24 and 48 h after TAC dressing application. Secondary endpoints include the differential effects of these dressings on the systemic concentration of other pro-inflammatory cytokines, collective peritoneal and systemic inflammatory mediator profiles, postoperative fluid balance, intra-abdominal pressure, and several patient-important outcomes, including organ dysfunction measures and mortality. DISCUSSION: Results from this study will improve understanding of the effect of active negative pressure peritoneal therapy after damage control laparotomy on the inflammatory response. It will also gather necessary pilot information needed to inform design of a multicenter trial comparing clinical outcomes among patients randomized to TAC with the ABThera versus Barker's vacuum pack. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier http://www.clicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01355094.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.007

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations42
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicAbdominal Surgery and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207