MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362692152 · doi:10.1097/cm9.0000000000002381

Superiority of sugammadex in preventing postoperative pulmonary complications

2023· review· en· W4362692152 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Haibei Liu, Rong Luo, Shuang-jiao Cao, Bixing Zheng, Ling Ye, Wensheng Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueChinese Medical Journal · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRelative riskCochrane LibrarySugammadexMeta-analysisConfidence intervalCohort studyPneumoniaNeostigmineInternal medicineSurgeryIntubationRocuronium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pulmonary complications often lead to increased mortality and financial burden. Residual paralysis plays a critical role in postoperative pulmonary complications. This meta-analysis was performed to determine whether sugammadex overmatches neostigmine in reducing postoperative pulmonary complications. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Medline through Ovid, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Chinese BioMedical Literature Databases were searched from their inception to 24 June, 2021. Random effects models were used for all analyses. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the quality of RCTs, while Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess for the quality of cohort studies. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled data from cohort studies showed reversing neuromuscular blocking with sugammadex had less risk of compound postoperative pulmonary complications (relative risk [RR]: 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60-0.89; P = 0.002; I2 = 81%), pneumonia (RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.48-0.86; I2 = 42%) and respiratory failure (RR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.41-0.56; I2 = 0%). However, pooled data from RCTs did not show any difference between the two groups in pneumonia (RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.24-1.40; I2 = 0%) and no respiratory failure was reported in the included RCTs. The difference was not found between sugammadex and neostigmine about atelectasis in pooled data from either RCTs (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.69-1.05; I2 = 0%) or cohort studies (RR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.87-1.18; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: The evidence of superiority of sugammadex was limited by the confounding factors in cohort studies and small scale of RCTs. Whether sugammadex precedes neostigmine in preventing pulmonary complications after surgery is still unknown. Well-designed RCTs with large scale are needed. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ); CRD 42020191575.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.030
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designSystematic review
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChinese Medical JournalSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207