MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170736202 · doi:10.1345/aph.1a323

Recombinant Human Erythropoietin Use in Intensive Care

2002· review· en· W2170736202 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Darveau, Éric Notebaert, André Denault, Sylvain Bélisle

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicErythropoietin and Anemia Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineErythropoietinIntensive care medicineAnemiaIntensive careRandomized controlled trialSepsisPlaceboEpoetin alfaClinical trialOrgan dysfunctionBlood transfusionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature concerning the role of recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) in reducing the need for transfusion in critically ill patients. DATA SOURCES: Articles were obtained through searches of the MEDLINE database (from 1990 to June 2001) using the key words erythropoietin, epoetin alfa, anemia, reticulocytes, hemoglobin, critical care, intensive care, critical illness, and blood transfusion. Additional references were found in the bibliographies of the articles cited. The Cochrane library was also consulted. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Controlled, prospective, and randomized studies on the use of rHuEPO in critically ill adults were selected. DATA SYNTHESIS: Anemia is a common complication in patients requiring intensive care. It is caused, in part, by abnormally low concentrations of endogenous erythropoietin and is mainly seen in patients with sepsis and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, in whom inflammation mediator concentrations are often elevated. High doses of rHuEPO produce a rapid response in these patients, despite elevated cytokine concentrations. There have been 3 studies on rHuEPO administration in intensive care and 1 trial in acutely burned patients. Only 2 of these studies looked at the impact of rHuEPO administration on the need for transfusion. CONCLUSIONS: Few randomized, controlled trials explore the role of rHuEPO in critical care. Only 1 was a large, randomized clinical trial, but it presents many limitations. Future outcome and safety studies comparing rHuEPO with placebo must include clinical endpoints such as end-organ morbidity, mortality, transfusion criteria, and pharmacoeconomic analysis. rHuEPO appears to provide an erythropoietic response. Optimal dosage and the real impact of rHuEPO on the need for transfusion in intensive care remain to be determined. Currently, based on the evidence available from the literature, rHuEPO cannot be recommended to reduce the need for red blood cell transfusions in anemic, critically ill patients.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.299
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations16
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of PharmacotherapySame topicErythropoietin and Anemia TreatmentFrench-language works237,207