Iron supplementation for patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Iron administration has been evaluated in several randomized controlled trials for the potential of increasing baseline hemoglobin values and decreasing the incidence of red blood cell transfusion during cardiac surgery. We describe the protocol for a study aiming to evaluate the efficacy and safety of perioperative iron administration in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: We will search MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Web of Science, from inception to Nov. 19, 2020, for randomized controlled trials in any language evaluating the perioperative administration of iron in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery; we will also include the first 50 results from Google Scholar. The primary outcome will be the incidence of red blood cell transfusion from the study intervention time until 8 weeks postoperatively. The secondary outcomes will be the number of red blood cell units transfused; change in ferritin level, reticulocyte count and hemoglobin concentration after iron administration; and adverse events. We will assess the risk of bias with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool, and will analyze the primary and secondary outcomes using a random-effects model. INTERPRETATION: This study will summarize the current evidence about perioperative iron administration in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, help determine whether this intervention should be included in enhanced-recovery protocols, and shape future research if needed. The final manuscript will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO no. CRD42020161927.
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 | 0.084 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.004 |
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".