A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Hypertonic Sodium Solutions and Mannitol for Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To comparatively evaluate hypertonic sodium (HTS) and mannitol in patients following acute traumatic brain injury (TBI) on the outcomes of all-cause mortality, neurological disability, intracranial pressure (ICP) change from baseline, ICP treatment failure, and serious adverse events. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched (inception to November 2015) using hypertonic saline solutions, sodium chloride, mannitol, osmotic diuretic, traumatic brain injury, brain injuries, and head injury. Searches were limited to humans. Clinical practice guidelines and bibliographies were reviewed. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Prospective, randomized trials comparing HTS and mannitol in adults (≥16 years) with severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale score ≤8) and elevated ICP were included. ICP elevation, ICP reduction, and treatment failure were defined using study definitions. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 326 articles screened, 7 trials enrolling a total of 191 patients met inclusion criteria. Studies were underpowered to detect a significant difference in mortality or neurological outcomes. Due to significant heterogeneity and differences in reporting ICP change from baseline, this outcome was not meta-analyzed. No difference between HTS and mannitol was observed for mean ICP reduction; however, risk of ICP treatment failure favored HTS (risk ratio [RR] = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.18-0.81). Serious adverse events were not reported. CONCLUSIONS: Based on limited data, clinically important differences in mortality, neurological outcomes, and ICP reduction were not observed between HTS or mannitol in the management of severe TBI. HTS appears to lead to fewer ICP treatment failures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.038 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".