Effect of blood pressure threshold on adverse outcomes in patients with acute spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Inadequate spinal perfusion in acute spinal cord injury (SCI) can exacerbate secondary injury. While current guidelines recommend maintaining mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥ 75-80mmHg post-injury, no quantitative analysis on effects of blood pressure on neurological outcomes exists. We aim to address this gap and evaluate the impact of blood pressure thresholds on adverse outcomes in acute traumatic and non-traumatic SCI to inform current guidelines. Methods The project adhered to PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024550044). We searched seven databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, Cochrane Reviews, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science. We included studies involving patients ≥ 16yrs with acute SCI, randomized control trials, prospective cohorts, and retrospective (case-control, cohort) studies. Excluded were chronic SCI and studies mentioning induced hypotension. The main outcome was the relationship between blood pressure thresholds and adverse functional outcome at up to one-year post-injury. Outcomes (unadjusted odds ratios (uOR) and adjusted odds ratios (aOR)) were calculated using a random-effect model with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Results Of 16,366 identified articles, 38 (n = 7,167, 73% male) were included in the qualitative and 14 (n = 2,553, 76% male) in the quantitative analysis. Pooled analysis found an increase in adverse functional outcomes in patients with below threshold blood pressures (uOR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.39–4.50; aOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03–1.05). Subgroup analyses consistently showed that lower blood pressure thresholds were associated with worse outcomes across all subgroups. Risk of bias was low to moderate in most studies. Heterogeneity was moderate to high (I2: 69.88%). Conclusion Lower blood pressure thresholds were consistently associated with worse functional outcomes in patients with acute SCI. While these findings support the rationale for MAP augmentation, they should be interpreted cautiously due to the observational nature of the data and high heterogeneity. High-quality prospective studies are needed to determine optimal blood pressure targets.
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 | 0.014 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".