Is hypertonic saline an effective alternative to mannitol in the treatment of TBI in adult and pediatric patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: This meta-analysis and systematic review aims to investigate and compare the efficacy of mannitol and hypertonic saline in treating patients who have suffered from traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods: We reviewed publications from the Medline database, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from inception to 13 October 2022 with only English-based literature. The risk of bias from included Randomized controlled trial (RCT) s was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Tool. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was employed to assess the included cohort's quality. The main outcomes of this review were treatment failure, mortality, intracranial pressure (ICP) reduction, and Cerebral Perfusion Pressure (CPP) increment. All the statistical analyses were performed using the Review Manager 5.4.1. A random-effects model was used to pool the studies when heterogeneity was seen, and the results were reported in the odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Results: The results of the statistical study found that there was a significantly lower treatment failure rate [OR = 1.80 (1.26, 2.57); p = 0.001; I 2 = 74%], the lower mortality rate [OR = 2.17 (1.26, 3.73); p = 0.005; I 2 = 0%], a greater increase in CPP [MD = -1.28 (-2.50, -0.05); p = 0.04; I 2 = 0%] associated with hypertonic saline treatment as compared to mannitol treatment. However, concerning ICP decrease, there was no significant difference between the two treatment options [MD = 1.86 (-0.64, 4.36); p = 0.14; I 2 = 70%]. Conclusions: Quantitative and qualitative analysis of trials and observational studies comparing the efficacy of hypertonic saline and mannitol demonstrates that hypertonic saline is a preferable treatment option with greater effectiveness and safety than mannitol in managing patients with TBI.
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.027 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".