MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037494966 · doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(05)66388-4

A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL TO EVALUATE METHODS OF POSTOPERATIVE CARE OF HYPOSPADIAS

2001· article· en· W2037494966 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypospadiasRandomized controlled trialClinical trialProspective cohort studySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Hypospadias repair is a common operation performed by pediatric urologists. Perhaps the greatest variable and source of controversy of postoperative care is the surgical dressing. We hypothesized that using no dressing would achieve surgically comparable results to those traditionally achieved by a postoperative dressing and it would also simplify postoperative parent delivered home care. Accordingly we designed a prospective randomized clinical trial to compare surgical outcome and postoperative care after hypospadias repair in boys with no dressing and those who received 1 of the 2 most common types of dressing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a 12-month period 120 boys with an average age of 2.2 years underwent primary 1-stage hypospadias repair at a single center with 4 participating surgeons. Repair was performed in 60 boys with proximal and 60 with distal hypospadias on an outpatient basis. Ethics and Internal Review Board approval, and informed consent were obtained. Boys were then prospectively randomized to receive no dressing, an adhesive biomembrane dressing or a compressive wrap dressing. Comprehensive instructions on postoperative care were distributed to all families and a questionnaire was distributed to the parents at the initial followup. Surgical outcome was evaluated and questionnaire responses were analyzed. Fisher's exact test was done to test the significance of differences in surgical outcomes and questionnaire responses. RESULTS: A total of 117 boys completed the prospective randomized trial. Surgical staff withdrew 3 cases from randomized selection to place a dressing for postoperative hemostasis. We obtained 101 questionnaires for response analysis. The type or absence of the dressing did not correlate with the need for repeat procedures, urethrocutaneous fistula, or meatal stenosis or regression. Analysis revealed less narcotic use in the no dressing group and fewer telephone calls to the urology nurse, or on-call resident and/or fellow. These findings were statistically significant. In addition, there were more unscheduled visits to the urology clinic, emergency room or primary physician office by boys with than without a dressing. Furthermore, 29% of the parents were not psychologically prepared to remove the dressing and 12% were so reluctant that the dressing was removed at the urology outpatient clinic. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical outcome and rate of adverse events or complications were not compromised without a postoperative dressing. An absent dressing simplified postoperative ambulatory parent delivered home care. We recommend that dressings should be omitted from routine use after hypospadias repair.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.381 · 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