Outcome reporting after inguinal hernia repair in children: A systematic review towards a core outcome set
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A Core Outcome Set for Inguinal Hernia repair (COS-IH) will facilitate adequate comparison of treatment strategies and the interpretation and implementation of clinical trial results. To develop such a COS-IH, this systematic review is performed to determine which outcomes are reported in RCTs and MA in children aged 0-16 years undergoing inguinal hernia repair. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines using PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases (Prospero registry: CRD42021281422). This systematic review included all randomized trials (RCTs) and meta-analysis (MA) that assessed inguinal hernia repair in children. Results: A total of 96 unique outcomes were identified in the 47 included articles. These outcomes were mapped into the 62 terms as shown in table 2. Conclusion: The development of this IH-COS is crucial for outcome data comparison and will enable adequate and efficient comparison of treatment strategies, and will aid the interpretation and implementation of clinical trial results.
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 | 0.035 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".