MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988734635 · doi:10.1089/end.2012.0687

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Current Evidence Comparing Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Adrenalectomy and Conventional Laparoscopic Adrenalectomy

2013· review· en· W1988734635 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endourology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMinimally Invasive Surgical Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisConfidence intervalCochrane LibraryAdrenalectomyRelative riskSurgeryVisual analogue scaleLaparoscopyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and safety of laparoendoscopic single-site adrenalectomy (LESS-A) and conventional laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) as a systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence. METHODS: We conducted a thorough search for comparative studies that compared LESS-A and conventional LA in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library. Studies were reviewed independently and rated by Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The operative time, estimated blood loss in operation, the time to resume oral intake after surgery, postoperative hospital stay, and the visual analog pain scale (VAPS) score were included for analysis to compare the efficacy, while the complications together with the analgesia use were included for analysis to compare the safety. RESULTS: Nine studies with 171 LESS-A cases and 272 conventional LA cases were identified. Although operative time was longer in LESS-A (mean difference [MD] 15.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 11.18 to 19.74), estimated blood loss (MD 4.72, 95% CI 12.08 to 21.52) and the time to resume oral intake (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.11) were similar; LESS-A presented a shorter postoperative stay in hospital (MD -0.60, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.35) and lower VAPS score (MD -1.21, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.97). Besides, the risk of minor postoperative complications (risk ratio [RR] 1.74, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.87) was similar. The postoperative analgesia demand in total (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.81) together with the analgesia usage lasting more than 24 hours after surgery (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.58) were associated with lower risk in LESS-A, however. CONCLUSIONS: Based on current evidence, the operative time seems to be longer in LESS-A; however, operative blood loss and complications are similar. In addition, LESS-A presents a shorter hospital stay after surgery and more acceptable perception of pain than conventional LA.

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.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.252
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.165 · 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