Surgery for scoliosis in Duchenne muscular dystrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Scoliosis in people with Duchenne muscular dystrophy is usually progressive and treated with surgery. However, it is unclear whether the existing evidence is sufficiently scientifically rigorous to support a recommendation for spinal surgery for most people with Duchenne muscular dystrophy and scoliosis. This is an updated review and an updated search was undertaken in which no new studies were found. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of spinal surgery in people with Duchenne muscular dystrophy with scoliosis. We intended to test whether spinal surgery is effective in increasing survival, improving respiratory function, improving quality of life and overall functioning; and whether spinal surgery is associated with severe adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the specialized registers of the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group (31 July 2012), MEDLINE (January 1966 to July 2012), EMBASE (January 1947 to July 2012), CENTRAL (2012, Issue 7 in the Cochrane Library), CINAHL Plus(January 1937 to July 2012), Proquest Dissertation and Thesis Database (January 1980 to July 2012), and the National Institute of Health Clinical Trials Database (July 2012). No language restrictions were imposed. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include controlled clinical trials using random or quasi-random allocation of treatment evaluating all forms of spinal surgery for scoliosis in people with Duchenne muscular dystrophy in the review. The control interventions would have been no treatment, non-operative treatment, or a different form of spinal surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently examined the search results and evaluated the study characteristics against inclusion criteria to decide which ones would be included in the review. MAIN RESULTS: On searching, 47 studies were relevant but none met the inclusion criteria for the review, because they were not clinical trials but prospective or retrospective reviews of case series. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since there were no randomized controlled clinical trials available to evaluate the effectiveness of scoliosis surgery in people with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, no evidence-based recommendation can be made for clinical practice. People with scoliosis should be informed about the uncertainty of benefits and potential risks of surgery for scoliosis. Randomized controlled trials are needed to investigate the effectiveness of scoliosis surgery, in terms of quality of life, functional status, respiratory function and life expectancy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".