Quality of life and symptom assessment in paraesophageal hernias: a systematic literature review of reporting standards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Paraesophageal hernias (PEH) present with a range of symptoms affecting physical and mental health. This systematic review aims to assess the quality of reporting standards for patients with PEH, identify the most frequently used quality of life (QOL) and symptom severity assessment tools in PEH and to ascertain additional symptoms reported by these patients not captured by these tools. METHODS: A systematic literature review according to PRISMA protocols was carried out following a literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases for studies published between January 1960 and May 2020. Published abstracts from conference proceedings were included. Data on QOL tools used and reported symptoms were extracted. RESULTS: This review included 220 studies reporting on 28 353 patients. A total of 46 different QOL and symptom severity tools were used across all studies, and 89 different symptoms were reported. The most frequently utilized QOL tool was the Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease-Health related quality of life questionnaire symptom severity instrument (47.7%), 57.2% of studies utilized more than 2 QOL tools and 'dysphagia' was the most frequently reported symptom, in 55.0% of studies. Notably, respiratory and cardiovascular symptoms, although less common than GI symptoms, were reported and included 'dyspnea' reported in 35 studies (15.9%). CONCLUSIONS: There lacks a QOL assessment tool that captures the range of symptoms associated with PEH. Reporting standards for this cohort must be improved to compare patient outcomes before and after surgery. Further investigations must seek to develop a PEH specific tool, that encompasses the relative importance of symptoms when considering surgical intervention and assessing symptomatic improvement following surgery.
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 | 0.108 | 0.358 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".