Intravenous milrinone for delayed cerebral ischaemia in aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: a systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) is a major contributor to mortality worldwide, with delayed cerebral ischaemia (DCI) contributing significantly to morbidity in these patients. There are limited evidence-based therapies for DCI. A 2012 case series first recommended the use of intravenous (IV) milrinone in this patient population, stating the need for formal prospective trials. However, uptake of this therapy into clinical practice has proceeded without adequate studies for efficacy and safety. METHODS: We sought to determine the effect of IV milrinone on DCI in patients with aSAH in terms of functional outcome through a systematic review using Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases. Quality assessment was performed using MINORS criteria. RESULTS: A total of 2429 studies were screened, with ten studies included in the review. Of these, no randomized trials were identified. Three observational comparative studies were included, and the remaining seven studies were non-comparative in nature, and mainly retrospective. Overall, the quality of evidence for non-comparative studies was poor. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals a paucity of evidence in the literature and highlights the need for high-quality randomized trials to investigate the safety and efficacy of IV milrinone, a commonly utilized treatment in critically ill aSAH patients with DCI. Ultimately, without evidence of efficacy and absence of harm, we caution continued use of intravenous milrinone for the treatment of DCI.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it