MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038566456 · doi:10.3171/2020.4.peds19720

Comparison of endoscopic third ventriculostomy with or without choroid plexus cauterization in pediatric hydrocephalus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3038566456 on OpenAlexaff
Yosef Ellenbogen, Karanbir Brar, Kaiyun Yang, Yung Lee, Olufemi Ajani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopic third ventriculostomyCauterizationHydrocephalusChoroid plexusMeta-analysisVentriculostomyRelative riskSurgeryConfidence intervalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Pediatric hydrocephalus is a significant contributor to infant morbidity and mortality, particularly in developing countries. The mainstay of treatment has long been shunt placement for CSF diversion, but recent years have seen the rise of alternative procedures such as endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV), which provides similar efficacy in selected patients. The addition of choroid plexus cauterization (CPC) to ETV has been proposed to increase efficacy, but the evidence of its utility is limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of ETV+CPC in comparison to ETV alone for the treatment of pediatric all-cause hydrocephalus. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICRCTN databases were searched from conception through to October 2018 for comparative studies including both ETV+CPC and ETV in a pediatric population. The primary outcome was success rate, defined as no secondary procedure required for CSF diversion; secondary outcomes included time to failure, mortality, and complications. Data were pooled using random-effects models of meta-analysis, and relative risk (RR) was calculated. RESULTS: Five studies were included for final qualitative and quantitative analysis, including 2 prospective and 3 retrospective studies representing a total of 963 patients. Overall, there was no significant difference in success rates between ETV and ETV+CPC (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.88-1.75, p = 0.21). However, a subgroup analysis including the 4 studies focusing on African cohorts demonstrated a significant benefit of ETV+CPC (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.08-1.78, p = 0.01). There were no notable differences in complication rates among studies. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis failed to find an overall benefit to the addition of CPC to ETV; however, a subgroup analysis showed efficacy in sub-Saharan African populations. This points to the need for future randomized clinical trials investigating the efficacy of ETV+CPC versus ETV in varied patient populations and geographic locales.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 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

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery PediatricsSame topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalusFrench-language works237,207