MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886228773 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022862

Small volume plasma exchange for Guillain-Barré syndrome in resource-limited settings: a phase II safety and feasibility study

2018· article· en· W2886228773 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Badrul Islam, Zhahirul Islam, Shafiqur Rahman, Hubert P. Endtz, Martine De Vos, Mathieu van der Jagt, P.A. van Doorn, Bart C. Jacobs, Quazi Deen Mohammad

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Neuropathies and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, BangladeshGlobal Affairs CanadaDepartment for International DevelopmentDepartment for International Development, UK GovernmentNational Institutes of Natural SciencesFondation MérieuxGBS/CIDP Foundation InternationalStyrelsen för Internationellt Utvecklingssamarbete
KeywordsMedicineFresh frozen plasmaGuillain-Barre syndromeSepsisAdverse effectAnesthesiaThrombosisMechanical ventilationVenous thrombosisSurgeryInternal medicinePediatricsPlatelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and feasibility of small volume plasma exchange (SVPE) for patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). DESIGN: Non-randomised, single-arm, interventional trial. SETTING: National Institute of Neurosciences and Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty adult (>18 years) patients with GBS presented within 2 weeks of onset of weakness who were unable to walk unaided for more than 10 m. INTERVENTIONS: SVPE involves blood cell sedimentation in a blood bag and removal of supernatant plasma after blood cells are retransfused. This procedure was repeated three to six times a day, for eight consecutive days. Fresh frozen plasma (FFP) and normal saline were used as replacement fluid. OUTCOME MEASURES: Serious adverse events (SAEs) were defined as severe sepsis and deep venous thrombosis related to the central venous catheter (CVC) used during SVPE. SVPE was considered safe if less than 5/20 patients experienced an SAE, and feasible if 8 L plasma could be removed within 8 days in at least 15/20 patients. RESULTS: Median patient age 33 years (IQR 23-46; range 18-55); 13 (65%) were male. Median Medical Research Council (MRC) sum score was 20 (IQR 0-29; range 0-36); three (15%) patients required mechanical ventilation. One patient developed SAE (severe sepsis, possibly related to CVC). The median plasma volume exchanged was 140 mL/kg (range 110-175) and removal of 8 L plasma was possible in 15 (75%) patients. Patients received a median 1 g/kg IgG via FFP although a substantial proportion of IgG was probably removed again by the SVPE sessions. GBS disability score improved by at least one grade in 14 (70%) patients 4 weeks after SVPE started. No patients died. CONCLUSION: SVPE seems a safe and feasible alternative treatment to standard plasma exchange (PE) or intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) for GBS; further studies of clinical efficacy in low-income and middle-income countries are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02780570.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.379
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 designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations41
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicPeripheral Neuropathies and DisordersFrench-language works237,207