MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250550123 · doi:10.1055/s-0036-1583155

Timing of Decompression in Patients with Acute Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review

2016· review· en· W4250550123 on OpenAlexaff
Michael G. Fehlings, Jefferson R. Wilson, Paul M. Arnold, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Mohammed F. Shamji, Thomas E. Mroz, Andrea C. Skelly, Jens R. Chapman, Lindsay Tetreault, Bizhan Aarabi, Steve Casha

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Spine Journal · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cord injuryDecompressionRehabilitationPhysical therapyEvidence-based medicinePopulationSystematic reviewSurgeryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMEDLINESpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction To perform an evidence synthesis of the literature assessing the comparative effectiveness, safety and cost effectiveness of early decompression (≤ 24 hours) versus later decompression (>24 hours) in adults with acute traumatic spinal cord injury. Material and Methods A systematic search was conducted for literature published through November 6th, 2014. Included studies were critically appraised and GRADE methods were used to determine the overall strength of evidence. Based on clinical expert opinion, an improvement of two or more grades for Frankel or ASIA grades or 5 point improvement in ASIA Motor Score was considered a priori to represent clinically meaningful improvement. Results Six studies met inclusion criteria. All but one was considered to be a moderately high risk of bias. Single studies in cervical SCI, thoracolumbar SCI, cervical and thoracolumbar SCI, acute central cord injury without instability were identified, and two studies report across SCI levels. Due to the heterogeneity across studies (injury level, measures used, and clinical characteristics), pooling of data was not done. No studies of conservative management met inclusion criteria. No full economic studies or studies of patient preferences or values were identified. Across studies and injury levels, early surgical decompression, defined as surgery ≤ 24 hours of injury, was not consistently associated statistically with clinically important improvement in neurological status. (low to very low strength of evidence) Isolated studies reported statistically significant and clinically important improvement at 6 months for cervical injury and following discharge from inpatient rehabilitation but not at other time points in a population comprised of injury at any level; another study reported a statistically significant 6 point improvement in ASIA Improvement Score only among patients with AIS B, C, or D, but not for those with AIS A. (very low strength of evidence). In one study of acute traumatic cord injury without instability, a clinically and statistically meaningful improvement in total motor scores was seen at six months but not 12 months and there were no statistical differences in ASIA Impairment Scale up to 12 months. (very low strength of evidence) Only one of three studies found a shorter length of hospital stay associated with early surgical decompression. Safety and harms were reported in only three studies; although no statistical differences between early and late decompression were seen, including for mortality, neurologic deterioration, pneumonia or pressure ulcers, studies were underpowered to detect differences particularly for rare outcomes. Conclusion The overall strength (quality) of evidence across studies was low to very low that early decompression may lead to clinically important improvement in neurologic status in some instances. For studies considering cervical SCI alone and thoracolumbar SCI alone, the overall quality (strength) of evidence was low. For studies involving a combination of cervical, thoracic and lumbar SCI the strength of the same conclusion was very low. Although no statistical or clinically significant differences were noted between early and late groups, firm conclusions regarding the safety of early versus delayed surgical decompression are difficult given small sample sizes and rare events.

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)0.001
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: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.398 · 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Spine JournalSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207