MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325962089 · doi:10.2196/resprot.5339

Use of Subperiosteal Drain Versus Subdural Drain in Chronic Subdural Hematomas Treated With Burr-Hole Trepanation: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

2016· article· en· W2325962089 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jehuda Soleman, Katharina Lutz, Sabine Schaedelin, Luigi Mariani, Javier Fandino

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurosurgical Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubdural HematomasMedicineRandomized controlled trialChronic subdural hematomaProtocol (science)SurgeryAnesthesiaHematomaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH) is one of the most frequent neurosurgical conditions affecting elderly people and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. The use of a subdural drain (SDD) after burr-hole trepanation for cSDH was proven to reduce recurrence and mortality at 6 months. To date in neurosurgery practice, evidence-based guidelines on whether an SDD or subperiosteal drain (SPD) should be used do not exist. Currently both methods are being practiced depending on the institute and/or the practicing neurosurgeon. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the reoperation rates after burr-hole trepanation and insertion of an SPD or SDD in patients with cSDH. METHODS: This is a prospective, noninferiority, multicenter, randomized controlled trial designed to include 220 patients over the age of 18 years presenting with a symptomatic cSDH verified on cranial computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging who are to undergo surgical evacuation with burr-hole trepanation. After informed consent is obtained, patients are randomly allocated to an SPD or SDD group. The primary endpoint is recurrence indicating a reoperation within 12 months. RESULTS: This research is investigator-initiated and has received ethics approval. Patient recruitment started in April 2013, and we expect all study-related activities to be completed by the end of 2016 or beginning of 2017. CONCLUSIONS: To date, evidence-based recommendations concerning the operative treatment of cSDH are sparse. Results of this research are expected to have applications in evidence-based practice for the increasing number of patients suffering from cSDH and possibly lead to more efficient treatment of this disease with fewer postoperative complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01869855; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01869855 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6fNK4Jlxk).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.007
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.006

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 head0.251
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicNeurosurgical Procedures and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207