MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200085898 · doi:10.3389/fsurg.2021.803750

Oral Mucosa vs. Penile Skin Flap in Substitution Urethroplasty for Anterior Urethral Strictures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021· review· en· W4200085898 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Surgery · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUrethroplastyCochrane LibraryOral mucosaMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialUrethral strictureSurgeryUrethraSystematic reviewInternal medicineMEDLINEPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of oral mucosa and penile skin flaps in the treatment of anterior urethral stricture. Methods: This meta-analysis was carried out according to the principle of preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) and registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021277688). The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CKNI databases were searched and reviewed up to Sep 2021. Quality evaluation was performed with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) system for non-randomized studies and Cochrane stools for randomized studies. Data synthesis was conducted with RevMan 5.4 software (Cochrane) and a Stata 15.0 environment (Stata Corpor, College Station, TX, USA). Results: After the research screening, eight studies (comprising 445 patients) were finally included in the quantitative analysis. In the success rate comparison, there was no significant difference between oral mucosa and penile skin flaps (oral mucosa vs. penile skin flap, Mantel-Haenszel statistic [M-H] fixed model, OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.47–1.34, P = 0.39). There was no significant difference in the post-operative complication comparison (oral mucosa vs. penile skin flap, Mantel-Haenszel statistic [M-H] fixed model, OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.40–1.16, P = 0.15). However, considering that the site of oral mucosa is far from the anterior urethra, it may have advantages in operation time through simultaneous operations (oral mucosa vs. penile skin flap, MD: −40.05, 95% CI: −79.42, −0.68, P = 0.046). Conclusion: When the oral mucosal graft was used in the anterior urethra urethroplasty, it had a similar success rate and post-operative complication rate, and oral mucosa substitution had a shorter operation time. This evidence-based medical research further supports the view that oral mucosa is the preferred substitution material for the anterior urethra urethroplasty.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.268 · 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