MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3151003436 · doi:10.21037/tcr-20-3349

Incidence and risk factors of parastomal hernia after radical cystectomy and ileal conduit diversion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W3151003436 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dechao Feng, Zhenghao Wang, Yubo Yang, Dengxiong Li, Wuran Wei, Li Li

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Cancer Research · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStoma care and complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Science and Technology of Sichuan ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineCystectomyIncidence (geometry)Meta-analysisCochrane LibraryBody mass indexInternal medicineConfidence intervalCumulative incidenceRelative riskSurgeryBladder cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Our aim is to report the incidence and risk factors of parastomal hernia (PH) after radical cystectomy (RC) and ileal conduit (IC) diversion with a cumulative analysis. Methods: Various databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of Science, were retrieved electronically and manually to identify eligible studies from inception to August 20, 2020. Two reviewers independently searched the above databases and selected the studies using prespecified standardized criteria. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies, and the data was completed by STATA version 14.2. Results: Fifteen studies were included in the final analysis. A pooled analysis of eight studies representing 1,878 patients reported the incidence of overall radiographic PH was 23% (95% CI: 17–29%). The 1-year PH incidence rate and 2-year incidence rate of RC and IC were 14% (95% CI: 6–22%) and 26% (95% CI: 14–38%), respectively. A pooled analysis of nine studies reported the incidence of clinically evident PH was 15% (95% CI: 10–19%). PH-related symptoms were reported in six studies, and the pooled result was 29% (95% CI: 24–33%), and a pooled analysis of ten studies showed that 20% (95% CI: 11–28%) of patients required surgical repair. However, it’s noteworthy that among symptomatic PH patients undergoing surgical repair, the pooled analysis of five studies showed that up to 26% (95% CI: 16–36%) of patients suffered PH recurrence. The most frequent risk factor was body mass index (BMI). Patients with BMI ≥22.9 kg/m2 experienced 2.92-fold higher risk of PH than their counterparts [hazard ratio (HR): 2.92; 95% CI: 1.65–5.19]. Conclusions: Our findings indicated that the PH incidence rate after RC and IC was significantly higher in radiographic evaluation than that of clinical examination, and the recurrence of repairment is considerable for patients requiring reconstruction.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.270
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations18
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranslational Cancer ResearchSame topicStoma care and complicationsFrench-language works237,207