MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285176070 · doi:10.36401/isim-21-05

Are We Overestimating the Effect of Indocyanine Green on Leaks Following Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022· review· en· W4285176070 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Verhoeff, Valentin Mocanu, Breanna Fang, Jerry T. Dang, Janice Y. Kung, Noah J. Switzer, Daniel W. Birch, Shahzeer Karmali

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovations in Surgery and Interventional Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsRoyal Alexandra HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIndocyanine greenMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialAnastomosisOdds ratioMEDLINESystematic reviewColorectal surgeryRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineSurgeryAbdominal surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Introduction Systematic reviews of retrospective studies suggest that indocyanine green (ICG) angiography reduces anastomotic leak (AL) and improves postoperative outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates colorectal surgery outcomes following ICG use with comparison of results found in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies. Methods A systematic search was conducted of studies evaluating ICG in colorectal surgery with more than five patients. Systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted in August 2021 and this study followed PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Primary outcome was AL. Meta-analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.4. Results Overall, 2403 studies were retrieved with 28 total studies including three RCTs meeting criteria. RCTs included 964 patients, whereas other studies comprised 7327 patients with 44.6% receiving ICG. The ICG and non-ICG cohorts were similar with respect to age (62.6 vs 63.1 years), sex (45.1% vs 43.1% female), smoking (22.4% vs 25.3% smokers), and diabetes (13.4% vs 14.2%), respectively. Anastomotic height (6.5 vs 6.8 cm) and technique (78.7% vs 74.8% stapled) were also comparable. With retrospective studies included, ICG was associated with AL reduction (odds ratio [OR] 0.41; 95% CI, 0.32–0.53; p < 0.001) and reoperation for AL (OR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43–0.95; p = 0.03), with pronounced effects for rectal anastomoses (OR 0.31; 95% CI, 0.21–0.44; p < 0.001). RCT evidence suggests a much smaller effect size (OR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42–0.99; p = 0.04), and no reduction in AL reoperation (OR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.29–1.80; p = 0.48) or length of stay (LOS). Conclusion Retrospective studies suggest reduced AL, reoperation for AL, and LOS with ICG angiography. However, RCTs suggest a smaller effect size and do not demonstrate reduced reoperation or LOS. Additional RCTs are required before widespread ICG uptake.

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)0.078
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.142
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: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0780.142
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.050
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovations in Surgery and Interventional MedicineSame topicColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207