A Pilot Placebo Controlled Randomized Trial of Dexamethasone for Chronic Subdural Hematoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current opinions regarding the use of dexamethasone in the treatment of chronic subdural hematomas (CSDH) are only based on observational studies. Moreover, the use of corticosteroids in asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patient with this condition remains controversial. Here, we present data from a prospective randomized pilot study of CSDH patients treated with dexamethasone or placebo. METHODS: Twenty patients with imaging-confirmed CSDH were recruited from a single center and randomized to receive dexamethasone (12 mg/day for 3 weeks followed by tapering) or placebo as a conservative treatment. Patients were followed for 6 months and the rate of success of conservative treatment with dexamethasone versus placebo was measured. Parameters such as hematoma thickness and clinical changes were also compared before and after treatment with chi-square tests. Adverse events and complications were documented. RESULTS: During the 6-month follow-up, one of ten patients treated with corticosteroids had to undergo surgical drainage and three of ten patients were treated surgically after placebo treatment. At the end of the study, all remaining patients had complete radiological resolution. No significant differences were observed in terms of hematoma thickness profile and impression of change; however, patients experienced more severe side effects when treated with steroids as compared with placebo. Dexamethasone contributed to many serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Given the small sample size, these preliminary results have not shown a clear beneficial effect of dexamethasone against placebo in our patients. However, the number of secondary effects reported was much greater for corticosteroids, and dexamethasone treatment was responsible for significant complications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".