MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2179538720 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd002005

Anticoagulation for cerebral sinus thrombosis

2002· review· en· W2179538720 on OpenAlexaff
J. Stam, Sebastiaan F. de Bruijn, Gabrielle deVeber

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboRelative riskCochrane LibraryThrombosisCerebral venous sinus thrombosisRandomized controlled trialStroke (engine)Pulmonary embolismMeta-analysisInternal medicineVenous thrombosisLow molecular weight heparinAnticoagulantSurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Treatment of cerebral sinus thrombosis with anticoagulants has been controversial. Anticoagulants may prevent new venous infarcts, neurologic deterioration, and pulmonary embolism but may also promote haemorrhages. OBJECTIVES: To review the available evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of anticoagulant therapy in patients with confirmed cerebral sinus thrombosis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 18 March 2002). We also searched MEDLINE (1966-Oct 2001), EMBASE (1980-Feb 2002) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library, 2002 Issue 1) and contacted authors to identify additional published and unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Unconfounded randomised controlled trials in which anticoagulant therapy was compared with placebo or open control in patients with cerebral sinus thrombosis (confirmed by intra-arterial contrast or magnetic resonance angiography). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted outcomes for each of the two treatment groups (anticoagulant treatment and control). The outcome data for each patient are analysed in the treatment group to which the patient was originally allocated ('intention to treat' analysis). A weighted estimate of the treatment effects across trials (relative risk, absolute risk reduction) is calculated using the Cochrane statistical software. MAIN RESULTS: Two small trials involving 79 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. One trial (20 patients) examined the efficacy of intravenous, adjusted dose unfractionated heparin. The other trial (59 patients) examined high dose, body weight adjusted, subcutaneous, low-molecular weight heparin (Nadroparin). Anticoagulant therapy was associated with a pooled relative risk of death of 0.33 (95 % CI 0.08 to 1.21) and of death or dependency of 0.46 (95 % CI 0.16 to 1.31). No new symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhages were observed. One major gastro-intestinal haemorrhage occurred after anticoagulant treatment. Two control patients (placebo) had a diagnosis of probable pulmonary embolism (one fatal). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Based upon the limited evidence available, anticoagulant treatment for cerebral sinus thrombosis appeared to be safe and was associated with a potentially important reduction in the risk of death or dependency which did not reach statistical significance.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.262
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.159 · 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

Citations244
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207