MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976913622 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000004003

Hyperosmolar Therapy in Pediatric Severe Traumatic Brain Injury—A Systematic Review

2019· review· en· W2976913622 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brittany M. Stopa, Rianne G. F. Dolmans, Marike L. D. Broekman, William B. Gormley, Rebekah Mannix, Saef Izzy

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypertonic salineMedicineTraumatic brain injuryAnesthesiaJadad scaleIntracranial pressureMannitolProspective cohort studySalineSurgeryCochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Traumatic brain injury is a leading cause of hospital visits for children. Hyperosmolar therapy is often used to treat severe traumatic brain injury. Hypertonic saline is used predominantly, yet there remains disagreement about whether hypertonic saline or mannitol is more effective. DATA SOURCES: Literature search was conducted using Pubmed, Cochrane, and Embase. Systematic review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. STUDY SELECTION: Retrospective and prospective studies assessing use of hyperosmolar therapy in pediatric patients with severe traumatic brain injury were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent authors performed article review. Two-thousand two-hundred thirty unique articles were initially evaluated, 11 were included in the final analysis, with a total of 358 patients. Study quality was assessed using Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Jadad score. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of the 11 studies, all evaluated hypertonic saline and four evaluated both hypertonic saline and mannitol. Nine reported that hypertonic saline lowered intracranial pressure and two reported that mannitol lowered intracranial pressure. The studies varied significantly in dose, concentration, and administrations schedule for both hypertonic saline and mannitol. Five studies were prospective, but only one directly compared mannitol to hypertonic saline. The prospective comparison study found no difference in physiologic outcomes. Clinical outcomes were reported using different measures across studies. For hypertonic saline-treated patients, mechanical ventilation was required for 6.9-9 days, decompressive craniectomy was required for 6.25-29.3% of patients, ICU length of stay was 8.0-10.6 days, in-hospital mortality was 10-48%, and 6-month mortality was 7-17%. In mannitol-treated patients, ICU length of stay was 9.5 days, in-hospital mortality was 56%, and 6-month mortality was 19%. CONCLUSIONS: Both hypertonic saline and mannitol appear to lower intracranial pressure and improve clinical outcomes in pediatric severe traumatic brain injury, but the evidence is extremely fractured both in the method of treatment and in the evaluation of outcomes. Given the paucity of high-quality data, it is difficult to definitively conclude which agent is better or what treatment protocol to follow.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207