Aminophylline for Prevention and/or Treatment of Post-Dural Puncture Headache: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Study Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Post-dural Puncture Headache (PDPH) is prevalent among individuals undergoing lumbar punctures. The non-invasive effect of some drugs, such as aminophylline on PDPH has been investigated in several clinical studies. As there is no comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis about the preventive and therapeutic effects of aminophylline on PDPH in the literature, the clinical effectiveness of this drug on the prevention and/or treatment of PDPH will be assessed in this study. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, WoS (Clarivate Analytics), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL Complete, Scopus, and Google Scholar as electronic databases will be precisely searched for clinical studies that assessed the effect of aminophylline on PDPH. Studies between 01-01-1980 and 30-06-2020 will be evaluated in this study, and there will not be any language restrictions. Contradictions between the reviewers within any phase of the study (screening, selecting, quality assessment, and data extraction) will be resolved by consensus; in case of unsolved disagreements, a third reviewer will eventually decide. The combination method will be applied according to the methodological resemblance in the selected articles using the Random Effect Model or the Fixed Effect Model. Also, for the included articles, forest plots will be drawn. For assessing statistical heterogeneity, the I2 statistic and the Q-statistic test will be applied. In addition, funnel plots will be used for assessing non-significant study effects and potential reporting bias. Furthermore, Egger’s and Begg’s tests will be done, and publication bias will be indicated by significant findings (P < 0.05). Conclusions: It is expected that the results of this study will be of benefit to researchers and clinicians for managing PDPH, and will be reported in conferences and publications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".