MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3030600181 · doi:10.1007/s40801-020-00200-z

Knowledge and Understanding of the Safety and Efficacy Aspects of BRIDION® Among Canadian Anesthesiologists

2020· article· en· W3030600181 on OpenAlexaffabout
Annette Stemhagen, Parambir Bhangu, Wenjun Zhong, Michele Julian, Gretty Deutsch, Carol E. Koro

Bibliographic record

VenueDrugs - Real World Outcomes · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsMerck Canada Inc. (Canada)
FundersMerck Sharp and Dohme
KeywordsSugammadexMedicineRocuroniumAmerican society of anesthesiologistsPatient safetyAnesthesiaAdverse effectConfidence intervalHealth careInternal medicinePropofol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: (sugammadex sodium) is an agent for the reversal of neuromuscular blockade (NMB) induced by rocuronium and vecuronium in general anesthesia. Following the approval of sugammadex in Canada (February 2016), Health Canada required a survey to assess the knowledge and understanding of the safety and efficacy aspects of sugammadex among anesthesiologists in Canada. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate how well the anesthesiologists in Canada understood the safety and efficacy aspects of sugammadex. METHODS: A survey was implemented among anesthesiologists in Canada via internet/phone. The survey was organized to test the knowledge of anesthesiologists by utilizing 11 key questions regarding the safety and efficacy of sugammadex. Five additional safety questions that were not considered part of the key messages but were important concepts for anesthesiologists to know when administering sugammadex were also included. RESULTS: A total of 202 completed surveys were collected. Based on an a priori threshold of understanding of 75%, 9 out of 11 key messages scored at or above this threshold. The two messages that scored below this threshold involved (1) knowledge that sugammadex is not indicated for use in children aged < 18 years (71.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 65.0-77.9) and (2) that monitoring is required for recurrence of NMB after reversal with sugammadex (73.3%; 95% CI 66.6-79.2). Of the five additional safety questions, four had an understanding rate of ≥ 88.1%. One question scored 60.4%; this question covered the concept that sugammadex is not recommended for use in patients with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min), including those requiring dialysis. CONCLUSION: In general, the survey results suggested that anesthesiologists understood the use, safety, and efficacy of sugammadex for the reversal of moderate to deep NMB induced by rocuronium or vecuronium in adults undergoing surgery.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrugs - Real World OutcomesSame topicAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsFrench-language works237,207