Open or Closed Diagnostic Peritoneal Lavage for Abdominal Trauma? A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To perform a meta-analysis of prospective, randomized controlled trials comparing the closed and open technique of diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) in trauma patients to determine whether there are any difference in outcomes. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE database of English language articles published from 1977 to 1999 was conducted by using the terms diagnostic peritoneal lavage, trauma, and randomized controlled trials. A manual search and Cochrane Library database search was also conducted. Seven randomized controlled trials, including a total of 1,126 patients were identified that compared closed versus open technique. Two reviewers assessed the trials independently. Trial quality was critically appraised by using the Jadad Instrument, a validated published quality scale. Data extraction of major complications, technical difficulties, procedure times, and false-negative and false-positive rates was carried out. The fixed effects model was used for statistical analysis. The Peto odds ratio (OR), weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated. RESULTS: The overall quality of studies was poor (mean, 2.4/7). Major complications did not differ significantly between closed versus open technique (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.15 to 2.92. Technical failures and difficulties were significantly higher in the closed group, i.e., OR 4.33 (95% CI, 1.96 to 9.56) and OR 4.19 (95% CI, 2.842 to 6.19), respectively. Accuracy of closed and open DPL was comparable with no difference in false-negative or false-positive rates between the two techniques. Procedure time was consistently lower in the closed technique. CONCLUSIONS: The closed DPL technique is comparable to the standard open DPL technique in terms of accuracy and major complications. The advantage of reduced time to perform the closed DPL is offset by the increased technical difficulties and failures of this group. Therefore, any significant benefit of routine closed DPL in improving outcomes can be excluded with more confidence based on pooled data than by the individual trials alone.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".