Sodium Bicarbonate for Control of ICP: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to perform a systematic review of the literature on the use of intravenous sodium bicarbonate for intracranial pressure (ICP) reduction in patients with neurologic illness. METHODS: Data sources: articles from MEDLINE, BIOSIS, EMBASE, Global Health, Scopus, Cochrane Library, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (inception to April 2015), reference lists of relevant articles, and gray literature were searched. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 reviewers independently extracted data including population characteristics and treatment characteristics. The strength of evidence was adjudicated using both the Oxford and Grading of Recommendation Assessment Development and Education methodology. RESULTS: Our search strategy produced a total 559 citations. Three original articles were included in the review. There were 2 prospective studies, 1 randomized control trial and 1 single arm, and 1 retrospective case report.Across all studies there were a total of 19 patients studied, with 31 episodes of elevated ICP being treated. Twenty-one of those episodes were treated with sodium bicarbonate infusion, with the remaining 10 treated with hypertonic saline in a control model. All elevated ICP episodes treated with sodium bicarbonate solution demonstrated a significant drop in ICP, without an elevation of serum partial pressure of carbon dioxide. No significant complications were described. CONCLUSIONS: There currently exists Oxford level 4, Grading of Recommendation Assessment Development and Education D evidence to support an ICP reduction effect with intravenous sodium bicarbonate in TBI. No comments on its impact in other neuropathologic states, or on patient outcomes, can be made at this time.
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 | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".