MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986689867 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000010281

Surgery vs conservative treatment for type II and III odontoid fractures in a geriatric population

2019· review· en· W2986689867 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lei Fan, Dingqiang Ou, Xuna Huang, Mao Pang, Xiuxing Chen, Bu Yang, Qiyou Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioCochrane LibraryConfidence intervalSurgeryMeta-analysisNonunionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether surgery or conservative treatment is more suitable for elderly patients with type II and type III odontoid fractures. We performed this meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of surgical and conservative treatments for type II and type III odontoid fractures. METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library in January 2017. Only articles comparing surgery with conservative treatment in elderly patients with type II and type III odontoid fractures were selected. After 2 authors independently assessed the retrieved studies, 18 articles were included in this meta-analysis, and the primary endpoints were the nonunion rate and mortality rate. The secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction, complications, and the length of the hospital stay. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Sensitivity analyses were performed for high-quality studies, and the publication bias was evaluated using a funnel plot. RESULTS: Lower nonunion (odds ratio [OR]: 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.18-0.40, P < .05) and mortality rates (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.34-0.79, P < .05) confirmed the superiority of surgery in treating type II and type III fractures. The secondary outcomes differed. Patients in the surgery group felt more satisfied with the outcome (OR: 3.44, 95% CI: 1.19-9.95, P < .05), and the complications were similar in the 2 groups (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.78-1.68, P = .5), whereas patients in conservative groups spent less time in the hospital (OR: 5.10, 95% CI: 2.73-7.47, P < .05). The results of the subgroup analyses and sensitivity analysis were similar to the original outcomes, and no obvious publication bias was observed in the funnel plot. CONCLUSION: Most elderly (younger than 70 years) patients with type II or type III odontoid fractures should be considered candidates for surgical treatment, due to the higher union rate and lower mortality rate, while statistically significant differences were not observed in the population with an advanced age (older than 70 years). Therefore, the selection of the therapeutic approach for elderly patients with odontoid fractures requires further exploration. Simultaneously, based on our meta-analysis, a posterior arthrodesis treatment was significantly superior to the anterior odontoid screw treatment.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.021
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207