MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081393236 · doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2020.07.041

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) with or without hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC): Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations — Part I: Preoperative and intraoperative management

2020· review· en· W3081393236 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Hübner, Shigeki Kusamura, Laurent Villeneuve, Ahmed Al‐Niaimi, Mohammad Alyami, Konstantin Balonov, John Bell, Robert E. Bristow, Delia Cortés‐Guiral, Anna Fagotti, Luiz Fernando Reis Falcão, Olivier Gléhen, Laura Lambert, Lloyd A. Mack, Tino Muenster, Pompiliu Piso, Marc Pocard, Beate Rau, Olivia Sgarbură, S.P. Somashekhar, Anupama Wadhwa, Alon D. Altman, William Fawcett, Jula Veerapong, Gregg Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Surgical Oncology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapyCytoreductive surgeryPerioperativeGrading (engineering)General surgerySurgeryIntensive care medicineCancerInternal medicineOvarian cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have been shown to considerably reduce complications, length of stay and costs after most of surgical procedures by standardised application of best evidence-based perioperative care. The aim was to elaborate dedicated recommendations for cytoreductive surgery (CRS) ± hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in a two-part series of guidelines based on expert consensus. The present part I of the guidelines highlights preoperative and intraoperative management. METHODS: The core group assembled a multidisciplinary panel of 24 experts involved in peritoneal surface malignancy surgery representing the fields of general surgery (n = 12), gynaecological surgery (n = 6), and anaesthesia (n = 6). Experts systematically reviewed and summarized the available evidence on 72 identified perioperative care items, following the GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, evaluation) system. Final consensus (defined as ≥50%, or ≥70% of weak/strong recommendations combined) was reached by a standardised 2-round Delphi process, regarding the strength of recommendations. RESULTS: Response rates were 100% for both Delphi rounds. Quality of evidence was evaluated high, moderate low and very low, for 15 (21%), 26 (36%), 29 (40%) and 2 items, respectively. Consensus was reached for 71/72(98.6%) items. Strong recommendations were defined for 37 items, No consensus could be reached regarding the preemptive use of fresh frozen plasma. CONCLUSION: The present ERAS recommendations for CRS±HIPEC are based on a standardised expert consensus process providing clinicians with valuable guidance. There is an urgent need to produce high quality studies for CRS±HIPEC and to prospectively evaluate recommendations in clinical practice.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations186
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Surgical OncologySame topicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal MalignanciesFrench-language works237,207