Risk of hematoma after hemithyroidectomy in an outpatient setting: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: After thyroid surgery, the overriding concern is the risk of post-thyroid bleeding (PTB). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety of hemithyroidectomy in an outpatient setting compared to an inpatient setting. The objectives were to (1) find the proportion of PTB in patients scheduled for outpatient hemithyroidectomy, (2) examine if outpatient hemithyroidectomy is clinically safe compared to an inpatient setting and (3) evaluate which selection criteria are most relevant for hemithyroidectomy in an outpatient setting. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid) and the Cochrane Library from inception until September 2021. We included studies reporting on PTB of patients after hemithyroidectomy in an outpatient setting. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa tool. The results were synthesised using Bayesian meta-analysis. Certainty in evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: This review included 11 cohort studies and 9 descriptive studies reporting solely on outpatients resulting in a total of 46,866 patients. PTB was experienced by 58 of the 9025 outpatients (0.6%) and 415 of the 37,841 inpatients (1.1%). There was no difference between the PTB rate of outpatients and inpatients (RR 0.715 CrI [0.396-1.243]). The certainty of the evidence was very low due to the high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: The risk of PTB in an outpatient setting is very low, and outpatient hemithyroidectomy should be considered clinically safe. The most relevant selection criteria to consider in outpatient hemithyroidectomy are (1) relevant comorbidities and (2) psycho/-social factors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".