MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099557967 · doi:10.1089/neu.2009.1147

Timing of Decompressive Surgery of Spinal Cord after Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: An Evidence-Based Examination of Pre-Clinical and Clinical Studies

2009· review· en· W2099557967 on OpenAlexaff
Julio C. Furlan, Vanessa K. Noonan, David W. Cadotte, Michael G. Fehlings

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurotrauma · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cord injuryCINAHLEvidence-based medicineDecompressionInclusion and exclusion criteriaSpinal cordMEDLINESurgeryPhysical therapyPsychological interventionPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the recommendations for spine surgery in specific cases of acute traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) are well recognized, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the role of the timing of surgical decompression of the spinal cord in the management of patients with SCI. Given this, we sought to critically review the literature regarding the pre-clinical and clinical evidence on the potential impact of timing of surgical decompression of the spinal cord on outcomes after traumatic SCI. The primary literature search was performed using MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. A secondary search strategy incorporated articles referenced in prior meta-analyses and systematic and nonsystematic review articles. Two reviewers independently assessed every study with regard to eligibility, level of evidence, and study quality. Of 198 abstracts of pre-clinical studies, 19 experimental studies using animal SCI models fulfilled our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Despite some discrepancies in the results of those pre-clinical studies, there is evidence for a biological rationale to support early decompression of the spinal cord. Of 153 abstracts of clinical studies, 22 fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. While the vast majority of the clinical studies were level-4 evidence, there were two studies of level-2b evidence. The quality assessment scores varied from 7 to 25 with a mean value of 12.41. While 2 of 22 clinical studies assessed feasibility and safety, 20 clinical studies examined efficacy of early surgical intervention to stabilize and align the spine and to decompress the spinal cord; the most common definitions of early operation used 24 and 72 h after SCI as timelines. A number of studies indicated that patients who undergo early surgical decompression can have similar outcomes to patients who received a delayed decompressive operation. However, there is evidence to suggest that early surgical intervention is safe and feasible and that it can improve clinical and neurological outcomes and reduce health care costs. Based on the current clinical evidence using a Delphi process, an expert panel recommended that early surgical intervention should be considered in all patients from 8 to 24 h following acute traumatic SCI.

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)0.123
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.268
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1230.268
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.012
Bibliometrics0.0140.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.639
GPT teacher head0.604
Teacher spread0.035 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations338
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurotraumaSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207