MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321749245 · doi:10.1007/s10029-023-02756-5

The effect of surgical repair of hiatal hernia (HH) on pulmonary function: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4321749245 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHernia · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFund for Shanxi Key Subjects Construction
KeywordsMedicineHiatal herniaMeta-analysisSurgeryPulmonary function testingCochrane LibraryCohortCohort studyAbdominal surgeryGeneral surgeryInternal medicineReflux

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose Hiatal hernia is renowned for the symptom of reflux, and few physicians associate a hiatal hernia with pulmonary issues. It is widely acknowledged that a hiatal hernia can be treated with surgery. However, less is known about how the surgical procedure would benefit pulmonary function. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine whether surgical repair can improve pulmonary function in patients with hiatal hernias. Methods We registered the protocol on the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) platform (no. CRD42022369949). We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for cohort studies that reported on the pulmonary function of patients with hiatal hernias. The quality of each cohort study was evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS). We then calculated mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals for these continuous outcomes. Each study’s consistency was appraised using the I 2 statistic. The sensitivity analysis was performed using the trim-and-fill method. Publication bias was confirmed using the funnel plot visually and Egger regression test statistically. Results A total of 262 patients from 5 cohorts were included in the meta-analysis. The quality evaluation revealed that, of these 5 papers, 3 received 8 NOS stars out of 9 stars, 1 received 9, and the other received 7, meaning all included cohort studies were of high quality. The results showed that surgical repair for a hiatal hernia significantly improved forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1; weighted mean difference [WMD]:0.200; 95% CI 0.047–0.353; I 2 = 71.6%; P = 0.010), forced vital capacity (FVC; WMD: 0.242; 95% CI 0.161–0.323; I 2 = 7.1%; P = 0.000), and total lung capacity (TLC; WMD: 0.223; 95% CI 0.098–0.348; I 2 = 0.0%; P = 0.000) but had little effect on residual volume (RV; WMD: –0.028; 95% CI –0.096 to 0.039; I 2 = 8.7%; P = 0.411) and the diffusing capacity carbon monoxide (DLCO; WMD: 0.234; 95% CI –0.486 to 0.953; I 2 = 0.0%; P = 0.524). Conclusion For individuals with hiatal hernias, surgical repair is an efficient technique to improve respiratory function as measured by FEV1, FVC, and TLC.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.303 · 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