Methylprednisolone for the Treatment of Patients with Acute Spinal Cord Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous meta-analyses of methylprednisolone (MPS) for patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injuries (TSCIs) have not addressed confidence in the quality of evidence used for pooled effect estimates, and new primary studies have been recently published. We aimed to determine whether MPS improves motor recovery and is associated with increased risks for adverse events. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library, and two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias. We pooled outcomes from randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled observational studies separately and used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to evaluate confidence. We included four RCTs and 17 observational studies. MPS was not associated with an increase in long-term motor score recovery (two RCTs: 335 participants; mean difference [MD], -1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.75 to 2.53; p = 0.55, low confidence; two observational studies: 528 participants; MD, 1.37; 95% CI, -3.08 to 5.83; p = 0.55, very low confidence) or improvement by at least one motor grade (three observational studies: 383 participants; risk ratio [RR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.53-1.33; p = 0.46, very low confidence). Evidence from two RCTs demonstrated superior short-term motor score improvement if MPS was administered within 8 h of injury (two RCTs: 250 participants; MD, 4.46; 95% CI, 0.97-7.94; p = 0.01, low confidence), but risk of bias and imprecision limit confidence in these findings. Observational studies demonstrated a significantly increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding (nine studies: 2857 participants; RR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.13-4.19; p = 0.02, very low confidence), but RCTs did not. Pooled evidence does not demonstrate a significant long-term benefit for MPS in patients with acute TSCIs and suggests it may be associated with increased gastrointestinal bleeding. These findings support current guidelines against routine use, but strong recommendations are not warranted because confidence in the effect estimates is limited.
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 | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".