High-concentration oxygen and surgical site infections in abdominal surgery: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been recent interest in using high-concentration oxygen to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs). Previous meta-analyses in this area have produced conflicting results. With the publication of 2 new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were not included in previous meta-analyses, an updated review is warranted. Our objective was to perform a meta-analysis on RCTs comparing high- and low- concentration oxygen in adults undergoing open abdominal surgery. METHODS: We completed independent literature reviews using electronic databases, bibliographies and other sources of grey literature to identify relevant studies. We assessed the overall quality of evidence using grade guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed on pooled data from included studies. A priori subgroup analyses were planned to explain statistical and clinical heterogeneity. RESULTS: Overall, 6 studies involving a total of 2585 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was no evidence of a reduction in SSIs with high-concentration oxygen (risk ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.50-1.19, p = 0.24). We observed substantial heterogeneity among studies. CONCLUSION: There is moderate evidence that high-concentration oxygen does not reduce SSIs in adults undergoing open abdominal surgery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 teacher head, 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".