Association between continuous hyperosmolar therapy and survival in patients with traumatic brain injury – a multicentre prospective cohort study and systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intracranial hypertension (ICH) is a major cause of death after traumatic brain injury (TBI). Continuous hyperosmolar therapy (CHT) has been proposed for the treatment of ICH, but its effectiveness is controversial. We compared the mortality and outcomes in patients with TBI with ICH treated or not with CHT. We included patients with TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale ≤ 12 and trauma-associated lesion on brain computed tomography (CT) scan) from the databases of the prospective multicentre trials Corti-TC, BI-VILI and ATLANREA. CHT consisted of an intravenous infusion of NaCl 20% for 24 hours or more. The primary outcome was the risk of survival at day 90, adjusted for predefined covariates and baseline differences, allowing us to reduce the bias resulting from confounding factors in observational studies. A systematic review was conducted including studies published from 1966 to December 2016. Among the 1086 included patients, 545 (51.7%) developed ICH (143 treated and 402 not treated with CHT). In patients with ICH, the relative risk of survival at day 90 with CHT was 1.43 (95% CI, 0.99–2.06, p = 0.05). The adjusted hazard ratio for survival was 1.74 (95% CI, 1.36–2.23, p < 0.001) in propensity-score-adjusted analysis. At day 90, favourable outcomes (Glasgow Outcome Scale 4–5) occurred in 45.2% of treated patients with ICH and in 35.8% of patients with ICH not treated with CHT (p = 0.06). A review of the literature including 1304 patients from eight studies suggests that CHT is associated with a reduction of in-ICU mortality (intervention, 112/474 deaths (23.6%) vs. control, 244/781 deaths (31.2%); OR 1.42 (95% CI, 1.04–1.95), p = 0.03, I2 = 15%). CHT for the treatment of posttraumatic ICH was associated with improved adjusted 90-day survival. This result was strengthened by a review of the literature.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".