Use of octreotide for the prevention of pancreatic fistula after elective pancreatic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of octreotide in preventing postoperative pancreatic fistula. Pancreatic fistula is one of the most common complications after elective pancreatic surgery. Several clinical trials have evaluated the use of octreotide to prevent the development of pancreatic fistula after pancreatic surgery with conflicting recommendations. METHODS: We undertook a meta-analysis of 7 identified randomized controlled trials, reporting comparisons between octreotide and a control. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, and the secondary outcome was the postoperative mortality. RESULTS: Seven studies, involving 1359 patients, met the inclusion criteria for this review. In these studies, sample sizes ranged from 75 to 252 patients. In total, 679 patients were given octreotide and 680 patients formed the control group. Perioperative octreotide is associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of pancreatic fistula after elective pancreatic surgery, with a relative risk of 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.41-0.85, p = 0.004). However, this risk reduction was not associated with a significant difference in postoperative mortality (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The review revealed that perioperative octreotide is associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of pancreatic fistula after elective pancreatic surgery. However, this risk reduction was not associated with a significant difference in postoperative mortality; further studies are warranted to confirm the results of this metaanalysis and to define which patient subgroups might benefit the most from prophylactic octreotide administration.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".