MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769509293 · doi:10.1177/2048872617744353

Editor’s Choice-Effects of targeted temperature management on mortality and neurological outcome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2017· review· en· W2769509293 on OpenAlexaff
Dylan Stanger, Vesna Mihajlovic, Joel Singer, Sameer Desai, Rami El-Sayegh, Graham C. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal Acute Cardiovascular Care · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTargeted temperature managementMedicineConfidence intervalMeta-analysisPopulationSystematic reviewQuality managementGrading (engineering)Emergency medicineIntensive care medicineMEDLINECardiopulmonary resuscitationInternal medicineResuscitationReturn of spontaneous circulationEnvironmental healthOperations managementManagement system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review, and where applicable meta-analyses, examining the evidence underpinning the use of targeted temperature management following resuscitation from cardiac arrest. METHODS AND RESULTS: Multiple databases were searched for publications between January 2000-February 2016. Nine Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome questions were developed and meta-analyses were performed when appropriate. Reviewers extracted study data and performed quality assessments using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology, the Cochrane Risk Bias Tool, and the National Institute of Health Study Quality Assessment Tool. The primary outcomes for each Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome question were mortality and poor neurological outcome. Overall, low quality evidence demonstrated that targeted temperature management at 32-36°C, compared to no targeted temperature management, decreased mortality (risk ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.61-0.92) and poor neurological outcome (risk ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.60-0.88) amongst adult survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with an initial shockable rhythm. Targeted temperature management use did not benefit survivors of in-hospital cardiac arrest nor out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors with a non-shockable rhythm. Moderate quality evidence demonstrated no benefit of pre-hospital targeted temperature management initiation. Low quality evidence showed no difference between endovascular versus surface cooling targeted temperature management systems, nor any benefit of adding feedback control to targeted temperature management systems. Low quality evidence suggested that targeted temperature management be maintained for 18-24 h. CONCLUSIONS: Low quality evidence supports the in-hospital initiation and maintenance of targeted temperature management at 32-36°C amongst adult survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with an initial shockable rhythm for 18-24 h. The effects of targeted temperature management on other populations, the optimal rate and method of cooling and rewarming, and effects of fever require further study.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.129
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.129
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.012
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.002

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal Acute Cardiovascular CareSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207