MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099242722 · doi:10.1097/aog.0b013e318288828c

Single-Incision Laparoscopy in Gynecologic Surgery

2013· review· en· W2099242722 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

VenueObstetrics and Gynecology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMinimally Invasive Surgical Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLaparoscopyConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialObservational studySurgeryMeta-analysisRelative riskInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate surgical outcomes for gynecologic surgery performed by single-incision laparoscopy compared with conventional multi-incision laparoscopy. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and clinicaltrials.gov through August 2012. We also screened reference lists of retrieved articles and manually searched abstracts from conference proceedings. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized control trials (RCTs) and high-quality observational studies that compared outcomes for single-incision laparoscopy and conventional laparoscopy for gynecologic surgery in patients. Included studies met predefined quality criteria and reported, at minimum, on complications, conversions, and operative time. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, RESULTS: Six RCTs and 15 observational studies met inclusion criteria, with a total of 2,085 patients (899 single-incision laparoscopies and 1,186 conventional laparoscopies). In the pooled analysis, there was no significant difference in the risk of total complications between single-incision laparoscopy and conventional laparoscopy groups (relative risk 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-1.40; P=.97, random effects model). The meta-analysis was powered to detect a 5% difference in complications (power=0.8, alpha=0.05). Mean operative time for adnexal surgery performed by single-incision laparoscopy was 6.97 minutes longer than conventional laparoscopy (95% CI 0.16-13.77; P=.045; I=47.2; random effects based on three RCTs). There was no significant difference in mean operative time for hysterectomy procedures performed by single-incision laparoscopy (8.29 minutes, 95% CI -5.85 to 22.43; P=.251; I=83.6; random effects based on three RCTs). Clinical outcomes of postoperative pain, change in hemoglobin, length of hospital stay, and scar cosmesis could not be pooled because of paucity of data and lack of uniform reporting. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in the risk of complications between single-incision laparoscopy and conventional laparoscopy approaches in gynecologic surgery. Studies with imprecise effect sizes suggest that single-incision laparoscopy may have longer operative time for adnexal surgery, but not for hysterectomy. Effects on other surgical outcomes remain uncertain.

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)0.034
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.229 · 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