MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111302181 · doi:10.1089/neur.2020.0056

Hypertonic Saline for Moderate Traumatic Brain Injury: A Scoping Review of Impact on Neurological Deterioration

2020· review· en· W3111302181 on OpenAlexaff
Heather Rossong, Mohammed Hasen, Bilal Ahmed, Frederick A. Zeiler, Perry Dhaliwal

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurotrauma Reports · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryHypertonic salineMedicineGlasgow Coma ScaleEmergency medicineGlasgow Outcome ScaleMEDLINEIntensive care unitPsychological interventionIntensive care medicineInternal medicineAnesthesiaPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypertonic saline (HTS) is a commonly administered agent for intracranial pressure (ICP) control in traumatic brain injury (TBI). The literature on its use is mainly in moderate/severe TBI where invasive ICP monitoring is present. The role of HTS in patients with moderate TBI (mTBI) outside of the intensive care unit (ICU) setting remains unclear. The goal of this scoping review was to provide an overview of the available literature on HTS administration in patients with mTBI without ICP monitoring, assessing its impact on outcome and transitions in care. We performed a scoping systematic review of the literature of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, BIOSIS, and the Cochrane Databases from inception to July 31, 2020. We searched for those published articles documenting the administration of HTS in patients with mTBI with recorded functional outcome or transitions in hospital care. A two-step review process was conducted in accordance with methodology outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions . There were many studies with combined moderate/severe TBI populations. However, most failed to document subgroup analysis for patients with mTBI. Our search strategy identified only one study that documented the administration of HTS in mTBI in which subgroup analysis for mTBI and outcomes were provided. This retrospective cohort study assessed patients with mTBI who did/did not receive prophylactic HTS, finding that those not receiving HTS demonstrated a deterioration in Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score in the first 48 h. However, the HTS group did demonstrate a trend to longer hospital stay and pneumonia. Our scoping review identified a significant gap in knowledge surrounding the use of HTS for patients with mTBI without invasive ICP monitoring. The limited identified literature suggests prophylactic administration prevents clinical deterioration, although this is based on a single study with data available for mTBI sub-analysis. Further studies on HTS in non-monitored patients with mTBI are required.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurotrauma ReportsSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207