MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313488591 · doi:10.1089/neu.2022.0409

Trends in the Use of Corticosteroids in the Management of Acute Spinal Cord Injury in North American Clinical Trials Network Sites

2023· article· en· W4313488591 on OpenAlexaff
Nader Hejrati, Bizhan Aarabi, Chris J. Neal, Beatrice Ugiliweneza, Shekar N. Kurpad, Christopher I. Shaffrey, James D. Guest, Elizabeth G. Toups, James S. Harrop, Michael G. Fehlings

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurotrauma · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMethylprednisoloneNeuroprotectionClinical trialSpinal cord injuryClinical PracticeIntensive care medicineSpinal cordInternal medicinePhysical therapyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Immunomodulatory therapeutics represent a potential neuroprotective strategy for the management of acute spinal cord injury (SCI). One of the most intensely debated neuroprotective drugs has been methylprednisolone sodium succinate (MPSS), which was investigated initially for its role in mitigating lipid peroxidation. More recently, the anti-inflammatory/immunomodulatory properties of MPSS have been increasingly appreciated. Over the past two decades, several systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines related to MPSS use in SCI have been published. The goal of this study was to investigate the temporal changes in the use of steroids at North American Clinical Trials Network (NACTN) centers and to correlate these changes with the evolution in published literature and guidelines. Data on patients enrolled from 2008–2018 in the prospective, multi-center NACTN registry, and in whom information related to the use of steroids was available, were analyzed. Patients were stratified based on whether they received steroids or not. The primary outcome was the change in the rate of steroid use per year between 2008 and 2018. Secondary outcomes included cardiac, gastrointestinal and genitourinary (GIGU), pulmonary, and dermatological complications. We identified 608 patients, of whom 171 (28.1%) were given steroids. In 2008 and 2009, the prevailing paradigm across NACTN centers was in favor of steroid administration and as such 70% ( n = 56) of patients received steroids in 2008 and 71.9% ( n = 46) in 2009. An abrupt practice reversal was observed in 2010, whereby only 19.7% of patients ( n = 14) received steroids, a trend that continued over subsequent years. Increasing literature in the 2000s arguing against the use of steroids culminated in the 2013 CNS/AANS practice guidelines for the management of acute SCI. These guidelines recommended against the use of MPSS for the treatment of those with acute SCI. Over the following years (2013–2018), steroids continued to be an uncommonly used therapeutic option in NACTN centers (range 3.9–16.9%). Patients receiving steroids had significantly higher rates of pulmonary complications (87%, n = 147) compared with those not receiving steroids (73%, n = 265; p = 0.0003). Compared with patients receiving steroids, however, those who did not receive steroids had significantly higher rates of cardiac (40%, [ n = 146] versus 23%, [ n = 39]; p = 0.0001) and gastrointestinal/genitourinary complications (55%, [n = 189], versus 31%, [n = 52]; p < 0.0001). The 2013 AANS/CNS guidelines and preceding literature appeared to have an impact on dramatically lowering the rates of corticosteroid use for acute SCI in NACTN sites after 2009. Of note, this analysis may not reflect the impact of the 2017 AO Spine Clinical Practice guidelines, which suggested the use of methylprednisolone as a valid practice option for acute SCI, especially for cervical injuries. Enhanced patient involvement in the clinical decision-making process and opportunities to personalize SCI management exist in reference to the use of MPSS in acute SCI.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
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 head0.497
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.050 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations22
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurotraumaSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207