MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789749451 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000010087

Evaluation the efficacy and safety of simultaneous splenectomy in liver transplantation patients

2018· review· en· W2789749451 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chao He, Xiaojuan Liu, Wei Peng, Chuan Li, Tianfu Wen

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
KeywordsMedicineSplenectomyOdds ratioLiver transplantationHazard ratioConfidence intervalInternal medicineMeta-analysisSurgeryTransplantationGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Simultaneous splenectomy during liver transplantation (LT) is debated. The present meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of splenectomy on the outcome of LT patients. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Wanfang databases for relevant studies published until the date of July 15, 2017. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale judgment. The data were analyzed using RevMan5.3 software. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies consisting of 2198 patients (892 patients received splenectomy during LT [SPLT group] and 1306 patients received LT only [LT group]) were included in the present meta-analysis. Efficacy analysis revealed that pooled hazard ratio for overall survival (OS) between 2 groups was not significantly different (hazard ratio = 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-1.50). SPLT group had less postoperative rejection (odds ratio [OR] = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.50-0.79) and small for size syndrome (OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.07-0.79). SPLT group had significantly lower preoperative platelet (mean difference [MD] = -17.23, 95% CI: -19.54, -14.91), but significantly higher postoperative platelet (MD = 170.45, 95% CI: 108.33-232.56). Conversely, SPLT group had significant higher preoperative portal pressure (MD = 1.54, 95% CI: 0.75-2.33) and significant lower postoperative portal pressure (MD = -1.17, 95% CI: -2.24, -0.11). Safety analysis revealed that SPLT group had significantly longer operation time (MD = 56.66, 95% CI: 35.96-77.35), more intraoperative blood loss (MD = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.25-1.91), and more intraoperative red blood cell (RBC) transfusion (MD = 3.77, 95% CI: 3.22-4.33). Furthermore, SPLT group had significantly higher incidence of postoperative hemorrhage (OR = 3.07, 95% CI: 1.92-4.91), postoperative thrombosis (OR = 3.63, 95% CI: 1.06-12.45), and perioperative infection (OR = 2.62, 95% CI: 1.76-3.90). In addition, perioperative mortality was significantly higher in the SPLT group (OR = 3.14, 95% CI: 1.31-7.52). Postoperative hospital stay did not differ significantly between 2 groups (OR = -1.75, 95% CI: -3.66-0.16). CONCLUSIONS: Splenectomy benefits LT patients in increasing platelet count. However, splenectomy is a morbid procedure as splenectomy increases operation time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative RBC transfusion, and postoperative complications. Splenectomy does not improve OS but increase perioperative mortality. Therefore, splenectomy should be performed only in selective patients.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.023
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.320 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207