Meta-analysis of clinical effects of abdominal aortic balloon occlusion in resection of pelvic and sacral tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To systematically evaluate the clinical effects of abdominal aortic balloon occlusion in resection of pelvic and sacral tumors. Methods All the randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies about abdominal aortic balloon occlusion in resection of pelvic and sacral tumors were electronically collected by searching databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc), PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library Database. Search time interval period was from construction of databases to December 31, 2018. Cochrane bias risk assessment table was used to evaluate the quality of RCT, and New Castle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of cohort studies. Two researchers independently screened the literatures according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, evaluated the quality of the included literatures and risk of bias, and extracted relevant research data. Meta-analysis of the clinical effects of abdominal aortic balloon occlusion for pelvic and sacral tumor resection was performed by RevMan5.3 software. Outcome observation indicators included intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative blood transfusion volume, operation duration time and incidences of postoperative complications. Results ① A total of 219 related literatures were screened out in this study. Six of them met the inclusion and exclusion criteria of literatures, which included 1 RCT and 5 retrospective cohort studies. A total of 609 patients with pelvic and sacral tumor resection were involved in these 6 literatures. Among them, 258 patients underwent abdominal aortic balloon occlusion, and 351 did not receive abdominal aortic balloon occlusion. ② Cochrane bias risk assessment results of 1 RCT were uncertain, and NOS scores of 5 retrospective cohort studies were 7 scores. According to the results of literature quality evaluation, 5 high-quality cohort studies were included in the Meta-analysis. ③ Meta-analysis of this study showed that the intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative blood transfusion volume, operation duration time (excluded clinical heterogeneity) of patients undergoing abdominal aortic balloon occlusion for pelvic and sacral tumors resection were significantly lower than those of patients without abdominal aortic balloon occlusion (SMD=-917.12, 95%CI: -1 239.61 to -594.62, P 0.05). Conclusions Abdominal aortic balloon occlusion can reduce the amount of bleeding and blood transfusion during pelvic and sacral tumor resection without increasing the incidence of complications, including nerve injury, wound infection, urethral injury and vaginal injury. Key words: Balloon occlusion; Aortic, abdominal; Sacrum; Pelvic tumor; Blood loss, surgical; Blood transfusion; Postoperative complications
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.052 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".