MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Barrier agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery

2008· reference-entry· en· W4252915939 on OpenAlexaff
Gaity Ahmad, James MN Duffy, Cindy Farquhar, Andy Vail, Patrick Vanderkerchove, Andrew Watson, David M. Wiseman

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2008
Typereference-entry
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePelvic painLaparotomyEndometriosisRandomized controlled trialSurgeryClinical trialAdhesionLaparoscopyGynecologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pelvic adhesion can form as a result of inflammation, endometriosis or surgical trauma. During pelvic surgery, strategies to reduce pelvic adhesion formation may include placing synthetic barrier agents such as oxidised regenerated cellulose, polytetrafluoroethylene or Fibrin sheets between the pelvic structures. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of physical barriers used during pelvic surgery in women of reproductive age on pregnancy rates, pelvic pain, or postoperative adhesion reformation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched September 2007) which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and CENTRAL, plus handsearching of 20 relevant journals and conference proceedings, and searches of several key grey literature sources. In addition, companies were contacted for unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Any randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of physical barriers versus no treatment or other physical barriers in the prevention of adhesions in women undergoing gynaecological surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors assessed trial eligibility and quality. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs were included. Five trials randomised patients while the remainder randomised pelvic organs. Laparoscopy (six trials) and laparotomy (10 trials) were the primary surgical techniques. Indications for surgery included myomectomy (five trials), ovarian surgery (five trials), pelvic adhesions (four trials), endometriosis (one trial), and mixed (one trial). Eleven trials assessed Interceed versus no treatment, two assessed Interceed versus Gore-Tex, one trial assessed Gore-Tex versus no treatment, and one trial assessed Seprafilm versus no treatment. A single trial assessed Fibrin sheet versus no treatment. No studies reported pregnancy or reduction in pain as outcomes. The use of Interceed was associated with reduced incidence of pelvic adhesion formation, both new formation and reformation following laparoscopic surgery or laparotomy. However, this result should be interpreted with caution. Gore-Tex was more effective than no barrier or Interceed in preventing adhesion formation. There was only limited evidence that Seprafilm was effective in preventing adhesion formation following myomectomy and no evidence to support Fibrin sheet. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The absorbable adhesion barrier Interceed reduces the incidence of adhesion formation following laparoscopy and laparotomy, but there are insufficient data to support its use to improve pregnancy rates. Gore-Tex may be superior to Interceed in preventing adhesion formation but its usefulness is limited by the need for suturing and later removal. There was no evidence of effectiveness of Seprafilm and Fibrin sheet in preventing adhesion formation.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.006

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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations143
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207