MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2114620007 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005123

Outcomes after corrective surgery for congenital dextro-transposition of the great arteries using the arterial switch technique: a protocol for a scoping systematic review

2014· article· en· W2114620007 on OpenAlexaff
Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Doris Forlemu-Kamwa, Angela Chu, Lehana Thabane, Rejane Dillenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesPopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyCINAHLSystematic reviewMEDLINEGreat arteriesMeta-analysisProtocol (science)Data extractionPediatricsPsychological interventionInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathologyNursingHeart disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Dextro-transposition of the great arteries (d-TGA) is a life-threatening congenital health defect that requires rapid surgery. The most widely used approach is the arterial switch operation (ASO) developed by Jatene in the 1970s. The first set of children who received this intervention are now adults. The objective of this scoping review of the literature was to document the short-term (less than 1 year), medium-term (1-20 years) and long-term (more than 20 years) outcomes in children who underwent the ASO. Our primary income is survival, but we will explore other secondary surgical, cardiovascular, reproductive and quality-of-life outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSES: Using a systematic scoping review approach, we will conduct a systematic search of the published literature for experimental and observational studies published on children who received the ASO intervention for classic d-TGA. We will search MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Literatura Latino Americana em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS) from 1973 (date of the first successful ASO) to February 2014. Identified articles will be screened in duplicate and full text for selected articles will be retrieved. Data extraction will be carried out in duplicate. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus or by consulting a third author. Where possible, proportions will be pooled using the inverse variance method. Our findings will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-analysis Of Observational studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results of this paper will be disseminated as peer-reviewed publications, at conferences and at clinical rounds. Our findings may answer important questions for surgeons who perform the ASO intervention and for clinicians who take care of patients after surgery and throughout their lifespans. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Prospero/CRD42014007590.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.018
Bibliometrics0.0260.018
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.003

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicCongenital Heart Disease Studies→French-language works237,207→