MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593638012 · doi:10.1097/dcr.0000000000000760

BMI as a Predictor for Perioperative Outcome of Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: a Pooled Analysis of Comparative Studies

2017· review· en· W2593638012 on OpenAlex
Yazhou He, Jiarong Wang, He Bian, Xiangbing Deng, Ziqiang Wang

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiseases of the Colon & Rectum · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeColorectal surgeryBody mass indexMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryLaparoscopic surgeryColorectal cancerInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)SurgeryPublication biasLaparoscopyAbdominal surgeryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There has been a long-lasting controversy about whether higher BMI is associated with worse perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Recently, a number of newly published investigations have made it possible to draw a quantitative conclusion. OBJECTIVE: We conducted this comprehensive meta-analysis to clarify the exact effect that BMI imposes on perioperative outcome of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify all relevant studies. STUDY SELECTION: Comparative studies in English that investigated perioperative outcome of laparoscopic colorectal surgery for patients with different BMIs were included. Quality of studies was evaluated by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. INTERVENTION: The risk factor of interest was BMI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effective sizes were pooled under a random-effects model to evaluate preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 43 studies were included. We found that higher BMI was associated with significantly longer operative time (p < 0.001), greater blood loss (p = 0.01), and higher incidence of conversion to open surgery (p < 0.001). Moreover, BMI was a risk factor for overall complication rates (p < 0.001), especially for ileus (p = 0.02) and events of the urinary system (p = 0.03). Significant association was identified between higher BMI and risk of surgical site infection (p < 0.001) and anastomotic leakage (p = 0.02). Higher BMI might also led to a reduced number of harvest lymph nodes for patients with colorectal cancer (p = 0.02). The heterogeneity test identified no significant cross-study heterogeneity, and the results of cumulative meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis, and the publication bias test verified the reliability of our study. LIMITATIONS: Most studies included were retrospectively designed. CONCLUSIONS: Body mass index is a practical and valuable measurement for the prediction of the perioperative outcome of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Higher BMI is associated with worse perioperative outcome. More accurate conclusions, with more precise cutoff values, can be achieved by future well-designed prospective investigations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.231
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.257 · 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