MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Meta‐Analysis Comparison of Open Versus Percutaneous Tracheostomy

2007· review· en· W2038101278 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 Laryngoscope · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTracheal and airway disorders
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneousMeta-analysisComplicationSurgeryConfidence intervalOdds ratioRandomized controlled trialSubgroup analysisProspective cohort studyStenosisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Multiple studies have been performed to characterize differences in complications and cost-effectiveness of open and percutaneous tracheostomy; however, large enough studies have not been performed to determine a clearly superior method. Our primary objective was to compare complication rates of open versus percutaneous tracheostomy in prospective, randomized-controlled trials using meta-analysis methodology. Secondary objectives included cost-effectiveness and procedure length analyses. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis. METHODS: From 368 abstracts, 15 prospective, randomized-controlled trials involving nearly 1,000 patients were reviewed to extract basic demographic data in addition to complications, case length, and cost-effectiveness. Pooled odds ratios (OR) with confidence intervals (CI) were calculated in addition to subgroup analyses and meta-regression. RESULTS: Pooled OR revealed statistically significant results against percutaneous tracheostomy for the complication of decannulation/obstruction (OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.29-6.03). There were significantly fewer complications in the percutaneous group with respect to wound infection (0.37, 0.22-0.62) and unfavorable scarring (0.44, 0.23-0.83). There was no statistically significant difference for complications of false passage (2.70, 0.89-8.22), minor hemorrhage (1.09, 0.61-1.97, P = .77), major hemorrhage (0.60, 0.28-1.26), subglottic stenosis (0.59, 0.27-1.29), death (0.70, 0.24-2.01), and overall complications (0.75, 0.56-1.00). However, the overall complications trended toward favoring the percutaneous technique. Percutaneous tracheostomy case length was shorter overall by 4.6 minutes, and costs were less by approximately $456 USD. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis illustrates there is no clear difference but a trend toward fewer complications in percutaneous techniques. Percutaneous tracheotomies are more cost-effective and provide greater feasibility in terms of bedside capability and nonsurgical operation.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.387
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.101 · 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