Comparison of surgical strategies in patients with chronic subdural haematoma: a protocol for a network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Chronic subdural haematoma (CSDH) is one of the most common neurosurgical emergencies, especially in the elderly population. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for CSDH. Some studies have suggested that some specific surgical strategies can have potential benefits for patients with CSDH; however, the best surgical method is still controversial. For a better understanding of surgical treatment for these patients, it is necessary to conduct a network meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the effects of medical treatment and different surgical methods. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol has been reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. Related studies published up to April 2023 will be searched in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP and Wanfang. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised prospective studies comparing at least two different interventions for patients with CSDH will be included. Quality assessment will be conducted using Cochrane Collaboration's tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale based on study design. The primary outcome will be the recurrence rates, and the secondary outcome will be the functional outcome at the end of follow-up. Pairwise and network meta-analyses will be conducted using STATA V.14 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas, USA). Mean ranks and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve will be used to evaluate each intervention. Statistical inconsistency assessment, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias assessment will be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not necessary because this study will be based on publications. The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022376829.
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 | 0.062 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.002 |
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".