Do neurosurgeons follow the guidelines? A world-based survey on severe traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is going to be the third-leading cause of death worldwide, according to the WHO. Two European surveys suggested that adherence to brain trauma guidelines is poor. No study has compared compliance between low- (LMICs) and high-income (UHICs) countries. Hence, this study aimed to investigate differences in the management of severe TBI patients, comparing low- and high-income, and adherence to the BTF guidelines. METHODS: A web-based survey was spread through the Global Neuro Foundation, different neurosurgical societies, and social media. RESULTS: A total of 803 neurosurgeons participated: 70.4 from UHICs and 29.6% from LMICs. Hypertonic was administered as an early measure by the 73% and 65% of the responders in LMICs and UHICs, respectively (P=0.016). An invasive intracranial pressure monitoring was recommended by the 66% and 58% of the neurosurgeons in LMICs and UHICs, respectively (P<0.001). Antiseizure drugs (P<0.001) were given most frequently in LMICs as, against recommendations, steroids (87% vs. 61% and 86% vs. 81%, respectively). In the LMICs both the evacuation of the contusion and decompressive craniectomy were performed earlier than in UHICs (30% vs. 17% with P<0.001 and 44% vs. 28% with P=0.006, respectively). In the LMICs, the head CT control was performed mostly between 12 and 24 hours from the first imaging (38% vs. 23%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The current Guidelines on TBI do not always fit to both the resources and circumstances in different countries. Future research and clinical practice guidelines should reflect the greater relevance of TBI in low resource settings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".