MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969997052 · doi:10.1093/neuros/nyz310_832

Meta-Analysis of Functional Outcomes in 5508 Patients Sustaining a Gunshot Wound to the Head

2019· article· en· W2969997052 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Georgios Α. Maragkos, Efstathios Papavassiliou, Martina Stippler, Aristotelis Filippidis

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma Management and Diagnosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioMeta-analysisConfidence intervalGlasgow Outcome ScaleFunnel plotStudy heterogeneityCohort studyCohortPublication biasRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineSurgeryGlasgow Coma Scale

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: There is currently no consensus regarding prognosis and management for gunshot wounds to the head (GSWH). To the author'' knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to study functional outcomes in GSWH. METHODS: Five online databases and the reference lists of relevant articles were queried for cohort studies of GSWH reporting factors associated with functional outcome. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) outcomes were divided into unfavorable (GOS 1-3) and favorable (GOS 4-5). Pooled estimates of odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were derived using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed with I-square and meta-regression. Funnel-plots were utilized to assess publication bias. RESULTS: We identified 35 retrospective cohort studies encompassing 5508 GSWH patients. Out of the factors assessed, the ones significantly associated with unfavorable functional outcome were: postresuscitation GCS 3 to 8 (Odds Ratio 33.2, 95% Confidence Interval [10.1-108.6]), suicide attempt (3.6 [1.7-7.8]), penetration of the dura (10.3 [1.8-60.5]), bullet trajectory through both hemispheres (8.3 [4.1-17.2]), through the ventricles (8.8 [1.6-48.8]), and through multiple lobes (8.6 [2.2-33.5]). No statistical significance was found for unfavorable functional outcome regarding patient age, sex, pupillary response, and the existence of an exit wound. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis regarding prognostic factors for neurologic outcomes in patients sustaining GSWH. Such factors can inform clinical decision-making and assist in setting patient and physician expectations in the acute setting. Further research is required to properly incorporate this information into management guidelines.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgerySame topicTrauma Management and DiagnosisFrench-language works237,207