MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139358540 · doi:10.1136/qshc.2008.031088

Measures of patient safety in developing and emerging countries: a review of the literature

2010· review· en· W2139358540 on OpenAlex
Krista Carpenter, M A Duevel, P W Lee, Albert W. Wu, David W. Bates, W. B. Runciman, G. Ross Baker, Itziar Larizgoitia, William B. Weeks

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

VenueBMJ Quality & Safety · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDissection (medical)Endometrial cancerSurgeryLaparotomyLymph nodeLaparoscopyHysterectomyLaparoscopic surgeryBody mass indexBlood lossStage (stratigraphy)CancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Objective</h3> This study aims to compare the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgical staging for early-stage endometrial cancer with conventional laparoscopic surgical staging. <h3>Materials and Methods</h3> The prospective study group consisted of 37 consecutive patients who underwent LESS surgical staging including hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic lymph node dissection. The historical control group consisted of 74 consecutive patients who underwent 4-port laparoscopic surgical staging including hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic lymph node dissection. Surgical outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. <h3>Results</h3> No patient in the LESS or conventional laparoscopic surgery group required an additional trocar or conversion to laparotomy. There were no intergroup differences in mean age, menopause status, body mass index, and previous history of abdominal surgery. Further, there were no inter-group differences in the number of total (LESS vs. conventional, 25.9 ± 10.6 vs. 24.6 ± 9.0, <i>P</i> = 0.497), pelvic (24.6 ± 0.497 vs. 23.3 ± 7.7, <i>P</i> = 0.459), and para-aortic (4.9 ± 2.5 vs. 6.9 ± 7.3, <i>P</i> = 0.494) lymph nodes retrieved; the operating time (183 ± 50 min vs. 173 ± 106, <i>P</i> = 0.388); estimated blood loss (194 ± 149 mL vs. 173 ± 106 mL, <i>P</i> = 0.394); number of patients requiring transfusion (5.4% vs. 8.1%, <i>P</i> = 0.717); postoperative hospital stay (5.0 ± 1.8 days vs. 5.1 ± 1.8 days, <i>P</i> = 0.911); intraoperative complications (2.7% vs. 0%, <i>P</i> = 0.333); and postoperative complications (0% vs. 1.4%, <i>P</i> &gt; 0.999). The postoperative pain scores and analgesic requirements were significantly lower in the LESS surgical staging group. <h3>Conclusions</h3> Laparoendoscopic single-site surgical staging was a feasible, safe, and efficacious procedure for surgical management of early-stage endometrial cancer. It was associated with less postoperative pain and analgesic requirements and was comparable to conventional laparoscopic surgical staging in perioperative outcomes.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.344 · 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