Endovascular revascularisation versus surgical revascularisation in patients with lower limb atherosclerosis obliterans: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis and meta-regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The revascularisation strategy for lower limb atherosclerosis obliterans (ASO) remains controversial. In this meta-analysis, we will summarise existing evidence to compare the long-term and short-term outcomes between endovascular revascularisation and open revascularisation for patients with ASO. METHODS: Relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies are included from the following databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. The last search time is 1 August 2022. Two reviewers will independently identify RCTs and cohort studies according to eligibility and exclusion criteria. The risk of bias of included cohort studies, and RCTs are assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, Methodological Index of Non-randomized Studies and Cochrane Collaboration's tool, respectively. The primary outcomes include overall survival, amputation-free survival and 30-day mortality. TSA Beta Software V.0.9.5.10 is used to perform the trial sequential analysis for primary outcomes. The Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool will be used to assess the level of evidence for outcome from RCTs. Stata V.17.0 software is used to pool primary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals or conference reports. No ethical approval requirements are required because the results presented in this study are conducted based on published data. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022359591.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.081 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".