MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203927525 · doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01826-y

Do continuous forms of intra-operative ultrafiltration enhance recovery after adult cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass? A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021· article· en· W3203927525 on OpenAlexaff
Joel Bierer, David Horné, Roger Stanzel, Mark J. Henderson, Leah Boulos, Jill A. Hayden

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialCardiopulmonary bypassCardiac surgeryPopulationIntensive care medicineMEDLINEIntensive care unitHemofiltrationMeta-analysisInternal medicineHemodialysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is associated with a systemic inflammatory syndrome that adversely impacts cardiopulmonary function and can contribute to prolonged postoperative recovery. Intra-operative ultrafiltration during CPB is a strategy developed by pediatric cardiac specialists, aiming to dampen the inflammatory syndrome by removing circulating cytokines and improving coagulation profiles during the cardiac operation. Although ultrafiltration is commonly used in the pediatric population, it is not routinely used in the adult population. This study aims to evaluate if randomized evidence supports the use of continuous intra-operative ultrafiltration to enhance recovery for adults undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis will include randomized controlled trials (RCT) that feature continuous forms of ultrafiltration during adult cardiac surgery with CPB, specifically assessing for benefit in mortality rates, invasive ventilation time and intensive care unit length of stay (ICU LOS). Relevant RCTs will be retrieved from databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and Scopus, by a pre-defined search strategy. Search results will be screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria by two independent persons with consensus. Selected RCTs will have study demographics and outcome data extracted by two independent persons and transferred into RevMan. Risk of bias will be independently assessed by the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias (RoB2) tool and studies rated as low-, some-, or high- risk of bias. Meta-analyses will compare the intervention of continuous ultrafiltration against comparators in terms of mortality, ventilation time, ICU LOS, and renal failure. Heterogeneity will be measured by the χ 2 test and described by the I 2 statistic. A sensitivity analysis will be completed by excluding included studies judged to have a high risk of bias. Summary of findings and certainty of the evidence, determined by the GRADE approach, will display the analysis findings. Discussion The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis will summarize the evidence to date of continuous forms of ultrafiltration in adult cardiac surgery with CPB, to both inform adult cardiac specialists about this technique and identify critical questions for future research in this subject area. Systematic review registration This systematic review and meta-analysis is registered in PROSPERO CRD42020219309 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020219309 ).

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)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0870.020
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.314 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207