MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2568688094 · doi:10.3171/2016.9.jns161383

Effects of decompressive craniectomy on functional outcomes and death in poor-grade aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017· review· en· W2568688094 on OpenAlexaff
Naif M. Alotaibi, Ghassan Awad El-Karim, Nardin Samuel, Oliver G. S. Ayling, Daipayan Guha, Aria Fallah, Abdulrahman Aldakkan, Blessing N. R. Jaja, Airton Leonardo de Oliveira Manoel, George M. Ibrahim, R. Loch Macdonald

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of neurosurgery · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlasgow Outcome ScaleModified Rankin ScaleDecompressive craniectomySubarachnoid hemorrhageMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryOdds ratioConfidence intervalMEDLINEMortality rateSystematic reviewInternal medicineGlasgow Coma ScaleSurgeryTraumatic brain injuryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE Patients with poor-grade aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) (World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies Grade IV or V) are often considered for decompressive craniectomy (DC) as a rescue therapy for refractory intracranial hypertension. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of DC on functional outcome and death in patients after poor-grade aSAH. METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Articles were identified through the Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to October 2015. Only studies dedicated to patients with poor-grade aSAH were included. Primary outcomes were death and functional outcome assessed at any time period. Patients were grouped as having a favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] Scores 1-3, Glasgow Outcome Scale [GOS] Scores 4 and 5, extended Glasgow Outcome Scale [GOSE] Scores 5-8) or unfavorable outcome (mRS Scores 4-6, GOS Scores 1-3, GOSE Scores 1-4). Pooled estimates of event rates and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the random-effects model. RESULTS Fifteen studies encompassing 407 patients were included in the meta-analysis (all observational cohorts). The pooled event rate for poor outcome across all studies was 61.2% (95% CI 52%-69%) and for death was 27.8% (95% CI 21%-35%) at a median of 12 months after aSAH. Primary (or early) DC resulted in a lower overall event rate for unfavorable outcome than secondary (or delayed) DC (47.5% [95% CI 31%-64%] vs 74.4% [95% CI 43%-91%], respectively). Among studies with comparison groups, there was a trend toward a reduced mortality rate 1–3 months after discharge among patients who underwent DC (OR 0.58 [95% CI 0.27–1.25]; p = 0.168). However, this trend was not sustained at the 1-year follow-up (OR 1.09 [95% CI 0.55-2.13]; p = 0.79). CONCLUSIONS Results of this study summarize the best evidence available in the literature for DC in patients with poor-grade aSAH. DC is associated with high rates of unfavorable outcome and death. Because of the lack of robust control groups in a majority of the studies, the effect of DC on functional outcomes versus that of other interventions for refractory intracranial hypertension is still unknown. A randomized trial is needed.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.046
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations58
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of neurosurgerySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207