MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

942 Low Incidence of Bleeding Complications in Patients With Cirrhosis Undergoing Transesophageal Echocardiography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019· review· en· W2979715754 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mobolaji Odewole, Ahana Sen, Arjmand Mufti, Deepak Agrawal, Anh D. Nguyen, Amit G. Singal, Nicole E. Rich

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContraindicationCirrhosisMeta-analysisEsophageal varicesIncidence (geometry)VaricesMEDLINEEndoscopySystematic reviewSurgeryInternal medicinePortal hypertension

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The presence of esophageal varices is considered a relative contraindication to transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) by some professional societies, so gastroenterologists are often consulted to perform upper endoscopy prior to TEE in patients with cirrhosis. Our study’s aim was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the risk of bleeding complications in cirrhosis patients following TEE. METHODS: Two reviewers searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from January 1992 to January 2019 for studies reporting bleeding complications following TEE in patients with cirrhosis. Data was extracted by two authors using standardized forms. The pooled incidence rate was calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird method for a random-effects model. The modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess study quality. This study was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: We identified 16 studies meeting inclusion criteria comprising 3415 unique cirrhosis patients. Nine studies (n = 3009) assessed risk of intraoperative TEE during LT and 7 studies (n = 406) included cirrhosis patients undergoing TEE for other indications; upper endoscopy was performed prior to TEE in 3 out of 9 and 7 out of 7 of those studies, respectively. The pooled risk of bleeding complications post-TEE was 1.0% (95%CI 0.0 – 2.0%) across all studies. The proportion of patients with bleeding complications was similar among patients undergoing intraoperative TEE during LT compared to those undergoing TEE for other reasons (1.1% vs 2.2%, P = 0.06). Further, bleeding rates were similar among patients in the subgroup of studies with mean MELD > 18 compared to studies with mean MELD < 18 (1.9% vs 1.3%, P = 0.31). Three studies had NOS quality scores < 5, 6 had a score of 5–7, and 7 studies had quality scores >7. Overall, the cohorts were representative and included patients with various etiologies of cirrhosis, though most were retrospective in design and lacked a control group. Detailed data on patient-level factors impacting bleeding complications (including degree of liver dysfunction and coagulopathy) were inconsistently reported and limited across studies. CONCLUSION: There is a low risk of bleeding complications in cirrhosis patients following TEE, suggesting TEE is safe and risk stratification with upper endoscopy may not be necessary.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.041
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicLiver Disease and Transplantation→French-language works237,207→