MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376564535 · doi:10.1055/s-0043-1767828

Perioperative Outcomes of Hyperlactatemia during Craniotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 1,832 Patients

2023· review· en· W4376564535 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mahfouz Sharapi, Nada Mostafa Al-dardery, Mohamed El‐Samahy, A E Mahfouz, Ahmed Aljabali, Hazem S. Ghaith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHyperlactatemiaPerioperativeMeta-analysisOdds ratioConfidence intervalAnesthesiologyMEDLINERelative riskPublication biasStudy heterogeneityInternal medicineSurgeryAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Hyperlactatemia, is common in patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures. Several studies have identified potential risk factors for developing hyperlactatemia in neurosurgical patients, including body mass index, surgery duration, tumour volume, and certain drugs such as volatile anesthetic agents and corticosteroids. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the evidence of the association between perioperative lactate levels in patients undergoing brain surgery and postoperative morbidity and mortality. Methods Using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, Medline, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, a systematic literature search was conducted for studies examining the association between perioperative hyperlactatemia and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing brain surgery. Two authors independently evaluated the full-text papers for eligibility, and then data extraction and meta-analyses of similar studies were conducted (using a random effect model for each outcome measure). The Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the risk of bias (NOS scale). Results Seven observational studies were included, and a total of 1,832 patients were assessed in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The quality of the included studies ranged from poor to high quality according to the NOS quality assessment tool. Meta-analysis results revealed no significant association between perioperative hyperlactatemia and postoperative new neurological deficits (five studies: odds ratio [OR] = 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.50–1.87], p = 0.92; heterogeneity: I 2 = 38%, p = 0.18). Similarly, perioperative hyperlactatemia was neither significantly associated with increased 30-day postoperative mortality (two studies; OR = 0.20, 95% CI [0.02–2.00], p = 0.17; heterogeneity: I 2 = 0%, p = 0.59) nor 6 months survival rate (three studies; OR = 1.05, 95% CI [0.75–1.47], p = 0.79; heterogeneity: I 2 = 0%, p = 0.51). Moreover, there was no difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups (four studies: mean difference = –0.85, 95% CI [–1.73 to 0.03], p = 0.06). Pooled studies were not homogenous (I 2 = 68%, p = 0.03). Conclusion Perioperative hyperlactatemia is benign in neurosurgical patients and is not associated with significant postoperative outcomes, such as developing new postoperative neurological deficit, 30-day mortality, 6-month survival, or prolonged hospital stay.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.311 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical CareSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207