MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314370839 · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e31829069a1

Sternotomy or drainage for a hemopericardium after penetrating trauma: a randomized controlled trial.

2014· article· en· W2314370839 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma Management and Diagnosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemopericardiumSurgeryIntensive care unitRandomized controlled trialCardiac surgeryAnesthesiaMedian sternotomyPenetrating traumaInternal medicineBlunt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine if stable patients with a hemopericardium detected after penetrating chest trauma can be safely managed with pericardial drainage alone. BACKGROUND: The current international practice is to perform a sternotomy and cardiac repair if a hemopericardium is detected after penetrating chest trauma. The experience in Cape Town, South Africa, on performing a mandatory sternotomy in hemodynamically stable patients was that a sternotomy was unnecessary and the cardiac injury, if present, had sealed. METHODS: A single-center parallel-group randomized controlled study was completed. All hemodynamically stable patients with a hemopericardium confirmed at subxiphoid pericardial window (SPW), and no active bleeding, were randomized. The primary outcome measure was survival to discharge from hospital. Secondary outcomes were complications and postoperative hospital stay. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were randomized to sternotomy and 56 to pericardial drainage and wash-out only. Fifty-one of the 55 patients (93%) randomized to sternotomy had either no cardiac injury or a tangential injury. There were only 4 patients with penetrating wounds to the endocardium and all had sealed. There was 1 death postoperatively among the 111 patients (0.9%) and this was in the sternotomy group. The mean intensive care unit (ICU) stay for a sternotomy was 2.04 days (range, 0-25 days) compared with 0.25 days (range, 0-2) for the drainage (P < 0.001). The estimated mean difference highlighted a stay of 1.8 days shorter in the ICU for the drainage group (95% CI: 0.8-2.7). Total hospital stay was significantly shorter in the SPW group (P < 0.001; 95% CI: 1.4-3.3). CONCLUSIONS: SPW and drainage is effective and safe in the stable patient with a hemopericardium after penetrating chest trauma, with no increase in mortality and a shorter ICU and hospital stay. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00823160).

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.233 · 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