Evidence for Hydroxocobalamin in Cyanide Toxicity Caused by Smoke Inhalation: An Updated Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hydroxocobalamin is the first-line treatment for confirmed cyanide poisoning. Its empiric use in patients with smoke inhalation injury-where cyanide toxicity is often suspected but not confirmed-remains controversial. Further research is needed to fully understand the benefits and risks associated with its use. This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to provide a systematic review of the use of hydroxocobalamin for the treatment of cyanide poisoning secondary to smoke inhalation injury, with a particular focus on mortality and adverse reactions. Methods: A systematic search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase was conducted for studies on cyanide poisoning from smoke inhalation injury treated with hydroxocobalamin. The search was limited to studies from the inception of the journals until July 30, 2025. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Six studies, comprising a total of 1238 patients, were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria; however, they did not meet the quality threshold for meta-analysis. Thus, only a systematic review was performed. Two studies reported mortality rates, which were found to be similar between the hydroxocobalamin and supportive treatment groups. In contrast, two studies indicated an association between hydroxocobalamin and acute kidney injury, whereas one study proposed a potential correlation with methemoglobinemia. Conclusions: In light of the uncertain benefits and potential risks associated with hydroxocobalamin use for cyanide poisoning from smoke inhalation injury, its administration should be approached with caution. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to establish optimal treatment strategies for this patient population.
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 | 0.011 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".