MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4307256987 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.8096

Open vs. robot-assisted radical cystectomy with extracorporeal or intracorporeal urinary diversion for bladder cancer: A pairwise meta-analysis of outcomes and a network meta-analysis of complications by urinary diversion approach

2022· article· en· W4307256987 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Carlos Riveros, Sanjana Ranganathan, Cole Nipper, Kelvin Lim, Michael Brooks, Furkan Dursun, Brian J. Miles, Alvin C. Goh, Mihir Desai, Zachary Klaasen, Girish S. Kulkarni, Christopher J.D. Wallis, Raj Satkunasivam

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineCystectomyUrinary diversionBladder cancerExtracorporealMeta-analysisHazard ratioConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialUrologyOdds ratioPerioperativeSurgeryInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: There are no meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing open radical cystectomy (OR C) with robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC), inclusive of both intracorporeal (iRARC) and extracorporeal (hybrid RARC, hRARC) urinary reconstruction. METHODS: MEDL INE, Embase, Scopus, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov registries were searched in May 2022. Outcomes of interest included recurrence- or progression-free survival (RFS/PFS), margin status and lymph node yield, mean estimated blood loss (EBL) and operating room time (ORT ), hospital length of stay (LOS ), 90-day complications and readmissions, and quality of life (QoL). Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models and Bayesian hierarchical random-effects models, respectively. RESULTS: We found no significant differences between RARC and OR C for oncological and most perioperative outcomes: RFS/PFS (hazard ratio [HR ] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-1.23); positive surgical margins (odds ratio [OR ] 1.05, 95% CI 0.60-1.85); lymph node yield (mean difference [MD ] -0.63, 95% CI -2.63-1.37); LOS (MD -0.22, 95% CI -1.10-0.65); overall complications (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.61-1.07); major complications (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.30); readmissions (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60-1.35); and QoL (standardized MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.17-0.14). We found significantly lower EBL for RARC compared to OR C (MD -312.61, 95% CI -447 to -178.22) at the expense of significantly prolonged ORT (MD 82.34 minutes, 95% CI 44.82-119.86). Network meta-analysis did not find significant differences in complications between hRARC and iRARC. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis confirms the equivalence of RARC and OR C with respect to oncological outcomes.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.074
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→