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 OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yucheng Ma, Zhong-Yu Jian, Qibo Hu, Zhumei Luo, Tao Jin

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.038
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in SurgerySame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207