Methodological background and strategy for the 2012−2013 updated consensus definitions and clinical practice guidelines from the abdominal compartment society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Abdominal Compartment Society (www.wsacs.org) previously created highly cited Consensus Definitions/Management Guidelines related to intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS). Implicit in this previous work, was a commitment to regularly reassess and update in relation to evolving research. Two years preceding the Fifth World Congress on Abdominal Compartment Syndrome, an International Guidelines committee began preparation. An oversight/steering committee formulated key clinical questions regarding IAH/ /ACS based on polling of the Executive to redundancy, structured according to the Patient, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) format. Scientific consultations were obtained from Methodological GRADE experts and a series of educational teleconferences were conducted to educate scientific review teams from among the wscacs. org membership. Each team conducted systematic or structured reviews to identify relevant studies and prepared evidence summaries and draft Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) recommendations. The evidence and draft recommendations were presented and debated in person over four days. Updated consensus definitions and management statements were derived using a modified Delphi method. A writingcommittee subsequently compiled the results utilizing frequent Internet discussion and Delphi voting methods to compile a robust online Master Report and a concise peer-reviewed summarizing publication. A dedicated Paediatric Guidelines Subcommittee reviewed all recommendations and either accepted or revised them for appropriateness in children. Of the original 12 IAH/ACS definitions proposed in 2006, three (25%) were accepted unanimously, with four (33%) accepted by > 80%, and four (33%) accepted by > 50%, but required discussion to produce revised definitions. One (8%) was rejected by > 50%. In addition to previous 2006 definitions, the panel also defined the open abdomen, lateralization of the abdominal musculature, polycompartment syndrome, abdominal compliance, and suggested a refined open abdomen classification system. Recommendations were possible regarding intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) measurement, approach to sustained IAH, philosophy of protocolized IAP management and same-hospital-stay fascial closure, use of decompressive laparotomy, and negative pressure wound therapy. Consensus suggestions included use of non-invasive therapies for treating IAH/ACS, considering body position and IAP, damage control resuscitation, prophylactic open abdomen usage, and prudence in early biological mesh usage. No recommendations were made for the use of diuretics, albumin, renal replacement therapies, and utilizing abdominal perfusion pressure as a resuscitation-endpoint. Collaborating Methodological Guideline Development and Clinical Experts produced Consensus Definitions/Clinical Management statements encompassing the most contemporary evidence. Data summaries now exist for clinically relevant IAH/ACS questions, which will facilitate future scientific reanalysis.
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 | 0.281 | 0.413 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.013 |
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".