Effect of prophylactic corticosteroids on postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction in the adult population: An updated systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: Postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction (PNCD) commonly occurs after surgery and prolongs hospital stays. Both direct noxious stimuli to the central nervous system and systemic inflammation have been implicated. Due to their potent anti-inflammatory effects, corticosteroids have been utilised to attenuate the incidence and severity of PNCD. This systematic review and meta-analysis strived to evaluate the prophylactic role of perioperative corticosteroids for PNCD. Methods: A search was run in pre-defined databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the role of corticosteroids in preventing PNCD. The incidence of PNCD within 1 month was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included the use of antipsychotic medications for the treatment, postoperative infection, and hospital length of stay. The results are exhibited as odds ratio (OR) and the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: = 66%). Trial sequential analysis showed the clinical benefit of corticosteroids in preventing PNCD; however, the requisite information size is still inadequate. The sub-group analysis supported the prophylactic effect of corticosteroids on delirium prevention but not on delayed neurocognitive recovery. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis revealed statistically significant protective effects of corticosteroids on the incidence of PNCD. However, further studies are still needed to confirm the protective role of this commonly used and relatively safe strategy for preventing PNCD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".