MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911222992 · doi:10.5152/dir.2018.17525

Predictors of bleeding complications following percutaneous image-guided liver biopsy: a scoping review

2019· review· en· W2911222992 on OpenAlex
Mehran Midia, Odedra Devang, Anatoly Shuster, Ramin Midia

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

VenueDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsBlackberry (Canada)Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences CentreMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiopsyCochrane LibraryCINAHLLiver biopsyMEDLINERadiologyInterventional radiologySurgeryRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Percutaneous tissue biopsy is a mainstay of diagnostic and interventional radiology, providing a minimally invasive method for diagnosing malignant and benign disease. The purpose of this review was to collect and summarize the best available evidence regarding the risk factors associated with bleeding complications in image-guided liver biopsy. METHODS: A literature review was performed, searching Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH) databases for any studies evaluating bleeding complications in image-guided liver biopsy. A total of 68 articles, published between January 1994 and April 2015, were reviewed in full, with 34 ultimately eligible for inclusion in the review. RESULTS: Bleeding of any kind occurred in up to 10.9% of image-guided liver biopsies, with major bleeding episodes ranging from 0.1% to 4.6% and minor bleeding events occurring in up to 10.9% of biopsies. The overall rate of bleeding was, however, found to be less than 2%. Several risk factors (patient, operator, and procedure-related) were identified as potentially indicative of an increased risk of post-biopsy bleeding. Patient-related risk factors included patient age (>50 years or <2 years), inpatient status (8/12 vs. 4/12, P < 0.001), comorbidities and/or concurrent diagnoses and coagulation status (rate of bleeding was 3.3% for international normalized ratio [INR] 1.2-1.5 vs. 7.1% for INR >1.5, P < 0.001). There was no consensus on impact of operator experience (>200 biopsies/year vs. <50/year) on post-biopsy bleeding rate. Procedure-related risk factors included needle size (cutting biopsy vs. fine needle aspiration, P < 0.001) and the presence of a patent track on post-biopsy ultrasound (P < 0.001). Lastly there was no difference found between targeted vs. nontargeted biopsies and number of needle passes. CONCLUSION: Reported rate of post-biopsy bleeding ranges between 0% and 10.9%, although the vast majority of studies reported bleeding rates under 2%. Several patient, operator, and procedure-related risk factors are associated with a higher risk of bleeding following liver biopsy.

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)0.001
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: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.230 · 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