MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205486201 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.803986

Prophylactic Central Neck Dissection for cN1b Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022· review· en· W4205486201 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xing-qiang Yan, Zhenzhen Zhang, Wenjie Yu, Zhaosheng Ma, Min-long Chen, Bojian Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeck dissectionRelative riskThyroid carcinomaMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryInternal medicineOncologySurgeryRetrospective cohort studyCohort studyCarcinomaConfidence intervalThyroid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The value of prophylactic central neck dissection (PCND) for papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) with clinically evident lateral cervical lymph node metastases (cN1b) remains unclear. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of PCND. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library and Embase databases up to September 2021 to identify eligible studies. Controlled clinical trials assessing therapeutic effects and safety of PCND for cN1b PTC patients were included. The risk of bias for each cohort study was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The primary outcomes were indexes related to the locoregional recurrence (LRR) and surgical complications. Review Manager software V5.4.0 was used for statistical analysis. A fixed effects model was adopted for the data without heterogeneity, otherwise a random effects model was used. RESULTS: We included 4 retrospective cohort studies, which comprised 483 PTC patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the central neck recurrence (CNR) (10.2% vs. 3.8%, relative risk (RR) = 1.82; 95%CI 0.90-3.67; P = 0.09), lateral neck recurrence (LNR) (5.1% vs. 7.7%, RR = 0.47; 95% CI 0.13-1.74; P = 0.26), and overall recurrence (OR) (18.9% vs. 16.9%, RR = 0.77; 95%CI 0.34-1.76; P = 0.54), between LND + PCND group and LND group. Simultaneously, PCND increased the risk of permanent hypoparathyroidism (11.4% vs. 4.5%, RR = 2.70, 95%CI 1.05-6.94; P = 0.04) and overall complications (17.0% vs. 5.3%, RR = 3.28; 95%CI 1.37-7.86; P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that PCND did not have any advantage in preventing LRR for cN1b PTC. Meanwhile, PCND may result in the increased rate of surgical complications. However, the current evidence is limited and more clinical trials are still needed to further clarify the true role of PCND. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, CRD42021281825.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.026
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207