MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405794937 · doi:10.1186/s13049-024-01310-1

The use and impact of prehospital blood lactate measurements in acute non-traumatic patients: a systematic review

2024· review· en· W4405794937 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hanne Beck Mieritz, Annmarie Touborg Lassen, Erika Frischknecht Christensen, Christian Backer Mogensen, Søren Mikkelsen, Anne Craveiro Brøchner

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineEmergency medical services

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The prehospital use of blood lactate measurements is increasing. However, the test's benefits have not been methodically evaluated in non-trauma patients. This study had three aims: (1) To assess the evidence of prehospital blood lactate measurements' prognostic value in non-trauma patients, (2) to investigate to what extent the test changed early patient treatment, and (3) to evaluate the healthcare personnel's attitude towards the test. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched until Aug 26, 2023. Cohort and randomized controlled trials assessing ≥ 20 acute non-trauma patients with prehospital lactate measurements were included if they reported (1) prognostic outcomes such as short-term mortality or (2) changes in early patient treatments. All study designs were included to assess (3) the healthcare personnel's opinion on prehospital lactate measurements. The risks of bias were assessed using the QUIPS tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the RoB-2. Study registration number CRD42020167169 (PROSPERO). RESULTS: We screened 6028 study reports. We included 15 studies on (1) the prognostic value of prehospital lactate measurements. Elevated blood lactate levels were correlated to a higher short-term mortality risk in most of the studies but not in studies with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients. The 15 prognostic studies were all cohort studies with moderate or high risks of bias. Four studies investigated (2) early treatment changes. They found that the prehospital lactate measurement may have changed early treatment in sepsis patients. However, all four studies on treatment changes were at high risk of bias. Four studies were included on (3) the healthcare personnel's attitude towards the lactate measurement. Evidence of the healthcare personnel's opinion on prehospital lactate measurements was scarce. CONCLUSION: Most acute non-trauma patients with elevated prehospital lactate levels had increased risks of short-term mortality, except OHCA patients. Few studies suggested that measuring prehospital lactate levels could change early patient care, particularly in patients with suspected sepsis. The certainty of the evidence is low in this systematic review. The included studies were heterogeneous, and many had high risks of bias. Further studies are needed to investigate the impact of prehospital lactate measurements on patient care.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency MedicineSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207