A network meta-analysis of therapeutic and prophylactic management of vasospasm on aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Vasospasm and cerebral ischemia after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage are associated with mortality and poor neurological outcomes. We studied the efficacy of all available strategies targeting vasospasm and cerebral ischemia on outcomes in a network meta-analysis. Methods: We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE databases from 1 January 1990 and 28 November 2021 according to PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials and longitudinal studies were included. All curative or preventive strategies targeting vasospasm and/or cerebral ischemia were eligible. A network meta-analysis was performed to compare all interventions with one another in a primary (randomized controlled trials only) and a secondary analysis (both trials and longitudinal studies). Mortality by 3 months was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were vasospasm, neurological outcome by 3 months, and dichotomized as "good" or "poor" recovery according to each study definition. Results: A total of 2,382 studies were screened which resulted in the selection of 192 clinical trials (92 (47.9%) and 100 cohorts (52.1%) and the inclusion of 41,299 patients. In randomized controlled studies, no strategy decreased mortality by 3 months. Statins (0.79 [0.62-1]), tirilazad (0.82 [0.69-0.97]), CSF drainage (0.47 [0.29-0.77]), and clazosentan (0.51 [0.36-0.71]) significantly decreased the incidence of vasospasm. Cilostazol was the only treatment associated with improved neurological outcomes by 3 months in the primary (OR 1.16, 95% CI [1.05-1.28]) and secondary analyses (OR 2.97, 95% CI [1.39-6.32]). Discussion: In the modern era of subarachnoid hemorrhage, all strategies targeting vasospasm failed to decrease mortality. Cilostazol should be confirmed as a treatment to improve neurological outcomes. The link between vasospasm and neurological outcome appears questionable. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=116073, identifier: PROSPERO CRD42018116073.
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 | 0.025 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.050 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".