MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753195337 · doi:10.1177/2192568217706367

A Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Spinal Cord Injury and Central Cord Syndrome: Recommendations on the Timing (≤24 Hours Versus >24 Hours) of Decompressive Surgery

2017· article· en· W2753195337 on OpenAlexaff
Michael G. Fehlings, Lindsay Tetreault, Jefferson R. Wilson, Bizhan Aarabi, Paul A. Anderson, Paul M. Arnold, Darrel S. Brodke, Anthony S. Burns, Kazuhiro Chiba, Joseph R. Dettori, Julio C. Furlan, Gregory W. J. Hawryluk, Langston T. Holly, Susan Howley, Tara Jeji, Sukhvinder Kalsi‐Ryan, Mark Kotter, Shekar N. Kurpad, Ralph J. Marino, Allan R. Martin, Eric M. Massicotte, Geno J. Merli, James Middleton, Hiroaki Nakashima, Narihito Nagoshi, Katherine Palmieri, Anoushka Singh, Andrea C. Skelly, Eve C. Tsai, Alexander R. Vaccaro, Albert Yee, James S. Harrop

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Spine Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaHealth Sciences CentreOntario Neurotrauma FoundationSt. Michael's HospitalToronto Western HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersAOSpineNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationGuidelineSpinal cord injuryDecompressionEvidence-based medicinePhysical therapyQuality of life (healthcare)CordSpinal cordSurgeryAlternative medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations on the timing of surgical decompression in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) and central cord syndrome. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted to address key relevant questions. A multidisciplinary guideline development group used this information, along with their clinical expertise, to develop recommendations for the timing of surgical decompression in patients with SCI and central cord syndrome. Based on GRADE, a strong recommendation is worded as "we recommend," whereas a weak recommendation is presented as "we suggest." RESULTS: Conclusions from the systematic review included (1) isolated studies reported statistically significant and clinically important improvements following early decompression at 6 months and following discharge from inpatient rehabilitation; (2) in one study on acute central cord syndrome without instability, a marginally significant improvement in total motor scores was reported at 6 and 12 months in patients managed with early versus late surgery; and (3) there were no significant differences in length of acute care/rehabilitation stay or in rates of complications between treatment groups. Our recommendations were: "We suggest that early surgery be considered as a treatment option in adult patients with traumatic central cord syndrome" and "We suggest that early surgery be offered as an option for adult acute SCI patients regardless of level." Quality of evidence for both recommendations was considered low. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines should be implemented into clinical practice to improve outcomes in patients with acute SCI and central cord syndrome by promoting standardization of care, decreasing the heterogeneity of management strategies, and encouraging clinicians to make evidence-informed decisions.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.120
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.120
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.010
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0100.004
Research integrity0.0150.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations246
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Spine JournalSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207