MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251211217 · doi:10.21203/rs.2.21710/v1

Low-Value Clinical Practices In Adult Traumatic Brain Injury: An Umbrella Review

2020· preprint· en· W4251211217 on OpenAlexafffund
Lynne Moore, Pier‐Alexandre Tardif, François Lauzier, Mélanie Berube, Patrick Archambault, François Lamontagne, Michaël Chassé, Henry T. Stelfox, Belinda J. Gabbe, Fiona Lecky, John B. Kortbeek, Paule Lessard-Bonaventure, Catherine Truchon, Alexis F. Turgeon

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsInstitut National d'Excellence en Santé et en Services SociauxUniversity of CalgaryUniversité de MontréalUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryValue (mathematics)MedicinePsychologyPsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Despite numerous interventions and treatment options, the outcomes of traumatic brain injury (TBI) have improved little over the last three decades, which raises concern about the value of care in this patient population. We aimed to synthesize the evidence on 14 potentially low-value clinical practices in TBI care. Methods Using umbrella review methodology, we identified systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of 14 potentially low-value practices in adults with acute TBI. We present data on methodological quality (AMSTAR-2), reported effect sizes and credibility of evidence (I to IV). Results The only clinical practice with evidence of benefit was therapeutic hypothermia (credibility of evidence II to IV). However, the most recent meta-analysis on hypothermia based on high-quality trials suggested harm (credibility of evidence IV). Meta-analyses on platelet transfusion for patients on antiplatelet therapy were all consistent with harm but were statistically non-significant. For the following practices, effect estimates were consistently close to the null: CT in adults with mild TBI who are low-risk on a validated clinical decision rule; repeat CT in adults with mild TBI on anticoagulant therapy with no clinical deterioration; antibiotic prophylaxis for external ventricular drain placement; and decompressive craniectomy for refractory intracranial hypertension. Conclusions We identified five clinical practices with evidence of lack of benefit or harm. However, evidence could not be considered to be strong for any clinical practice as effect measures were imprecise and heterogeneous, systematic reviews were often of low quality and most included studies had a high risk of bias. Protocol registration PROSPERO: CRD42019132428

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.242
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.242
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.009
Bibliometrics0.0210.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.908
GPT teacher head0.753
Teacher spread0.155 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207