Cardiac complications after stroke: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Stroke is the second most common cause of death after ischaemic heart diseases and the third leading cause of disability worldwide. The contribution of cardiac complications to the mortality of patients with stroke is variable across studies, ranging from 12.5% to 22.7%. Many of these cardiac complications are preventable, and early recognition and adequate management guided by appropriate up-to-date knowledge of their relative incidence and fatality can help to improve patients’ outcomes. This systematic review aims to summarise the available data on the burden of cardiac complications after stroke. Methods and analysis This review will include all cross-sectional, case–control and cohort studies and clinical trials published between 1 January 1950 and 31 December 2017, involving adults and/or children, and reporting on the prevalence, the incidence and/or the mortality of cardiac complications after stroke. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts of records retrieved from PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, ISI Web of Science and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature for eligibility, and then assess the risk of bias and quality of reporting to select the studies which will be included. All authors will contribute to the retrieval of full texts of eligible records and data extraction. Heterogeneity across studies will be evaluated by the χ2 test on Cochran’s Q statistic. Study-specific estimates of the prevalence, incidence and mortality of cardiac complications after stroke across studies will be pooled through random-effect or fixed-effect meta-analysis depending on the source of the heterogeneity, after stabilising the variance of individual studies using the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. Visual analysis of funnel plots and Egger’s test will be done to detect small-study effect. Ethics and dissemination This review and meta-analysis will be based on published data and will therefore not require a specific ethical clearance. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018082551.
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 | 0.066 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.104 | 0.009 |
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".