MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321783317 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2613263/v1

Prophylactic Abdominal Drainage After Gastrectomy: An Updated Meta-Analysis

2023· preprint· en· W4321783317 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guangxu Zhu, Shengjie Zhou, Qihang Sun, Bowen Li, Qingshun Zhu, Xuguang Jiao, Shengyong Zhai, Jinqiu Xiong, Xiaomin Lang, Jianjun Qu

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Shandong Province
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryGastrointestinal functionCochrane LibraryIncidence (geometry)AnastomosisMeta-analysisComplicationAbscessAbdominal surgeryInternal medicineRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: At present, there is no convincing evidence-based medical basis for the placement of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy.This meta-analysis aimed to analyze the incidence of complications and the recovery of gastrointestinal function after gastrectomy in the drain group and the no-drain group. Methods: Data were retrieved from electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP databases up to December 2022, including the outcomes of individual treatment after gastrectomy. Complication related index:Incidence of Postoperative Complications, Anastomotic leak,Intra-abdominal bleeding, Wound Infection, Hospital mortality, Pulmonary infection, Intra-abdominal abscess, Abdominal infection, Readmission, Reoperation, Drain related complications etc. Recovery of gastrointestinal function related index: Passage of flatus, Initiation of soft diet, Hospital stay after surgery. The Jadad score and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of the included studies. Results: After screening, 20 literatures were finally included, including 4984 patients. Meta-analysis results showed that the passage of flatus(WMD=0.32, 95%CI=0.07~0.58, P=0.01)and initiation of soft diet(WMD=0.45, 95%CI=0.20~0.71, P=0.0005)in the no-drain group were better than those in the drain group. The drain group was not superior to the no-drain group in hospital stay after surgery, postoperative complications, wound infection, pulmonary infection, anastomotic leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, intra-abdominal bleeding, intra-abdominal infection, mortality, reoperation, readmission, and drainage-related complications. Conclusions: Prophylactic placement of the peritoneal drainage tube did not reduce the incidence of early complications but delayed recovery of gastrointestinal function. Abdominal drainage is not required after radical gastrectomy, but is recommended for high-risk patients with anastomotic fistula and intraperitoneal bleeding.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.041
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207