MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313048660 · doi:10.1186/s40463-016-0138-2

An outcomes analysis of anterior epistaxis management in the emergency department

2016· article· en· W2313048660 on OpenAlexaffabout
Edward J. Newton, Andrea Lasso, William Petrcich, Shaun Kilty

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Anomalies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCauterizationEmergency departmentSurgeryRetrospective cohort studyModalities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Many treatment options exist for the management of anterior epistaxis. However, little is known about treatment outcomes. The objective was to identify the currently utilised methods of management and outcomes for patients with anterior epistaxis presenting to the emergency department (ED) at a Canadian tertiary care center. METHODS: A retrospective review of ED visits from January 2012-May 2014 for adult patients with a diagnosis of anterior epistaxis was performed. Patient demographic data, comorbidities, and treatment methods were documented. The effectiveness of different treatment modalities was determined. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-three primary anterior epistaxis cases were included. Mean patient age was 70 years and 49% of patients were female. Comorbidities included hypertension (56%), diabetes (19%), CAD (28%), and atrial fibrillation (27%). A large proportion of the cohort (61%) was on at least one anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. The most common utilised treatment modalities were silver nitrate cauterization, Merocel®, petroleum gauze packing, nasal clip and 15% were simply observed. Initial treatment success was achieved in 74% of cases. Of patients receiving specific treatment modalities, silver nitrate cauterization had the highest success rate at 80%. 26% of patients returned to the ED for recurrence of epistaxis with highest rates occurring in the nasal clip (59%), Merocel® (26%), and petroleum gauze packing (42%) groups. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in recurrence rate among the different treatment modalities observed may be due to true differences in effectiveness or differences in treatment selection by the ED physicians based on severity of epistaxis. Cauterization with silver nitrate, however, offers the added benefit of no need for follow up. Further study is needed to elucidate the most efficacious treatment modality based on epistaxis severity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.279 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations41
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck SurgerySame topicVascular Anomalies and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207