Clinical Practice Guideline Development for Autonomic Dysreflexia in Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Autonomic Dysreflexia (AD) is a crucial emergency complication of cervical and upper thoracic spinal cord injury (SCI). Although there are several treatment options for AD, unfortunately, there is no consensus on the treatment of AD.This study aimed to present Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) development for AD in SCI in different conditions. Methods: The project was carried out by an executive team of general practitioners and neurosurgeons. A national multidisciplinary panel of experts performed the decision-making step, which consisted of deciding on the final list of recommendations and articulating novel recommendations regarding the infrastructure and fundamental elements necessary for managing patients suffering from AD. Four appraisers evaluated the guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tools. Results: A total of 575 articles were found after searching different databases. After the primary screening, title, abstract, and full-text screening were performed, which yielded 9 records. Five were excluded after the AGREE II evaluation. The source guidelines' recommendations were tabulated as possible scenarios for 15 patient/population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes clinical questions. Based on the expert panel's opinion, all the recommendations were adaptable. Finally, the suggestions were transformed into a protocol for managing patients suffering from autonomic dysreflexia. Conclusion: This guideline presented the treatment and pharmacotherapy of autonomic dysreflexia. However, the treatment is being updated. We suggest more educational multimedia for health care professionals, primarily in the emergency department.
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 | 0.037 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".