Complications following surgeries for endometriosis: A systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is a common gynecological condition with a wide range of symptoms, including infertility, dyspareunia, intestinal disorders, and pelvic pain. Laparoscopy and laparotomy are used widely for diagnosing and managing endometriosis. We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aims of reporting complications rates following each type of surgeries for endometriosis and determinants of complications. METHOD: We will search Medline (via PubMed), Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for both retrospective and prospective cohorts or trials of at least 30 participants reporting perioperative and postoperative complications for endometriosis surgeries. We will restrict the studies to those conducted after 2011, to be representative of current practices, and will exclude studies of surgeries for gynecological cancer, or other concomitant benign gynecologic surgeries such as myomectomy. Two reviewers will independently screen references and select eligible studies. A standardized form will be used to collect data related to the baseline characteristics, potential determinants of complications, types of interventions, and outcomes. Cumulative incidences of complications will be pooled using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects method. The relation between potential determinants and complications will be reported with risk ratios and their 95% of confidence intervals. Subgroup analysis of surgical approach, surgical procedure, superficial and deep infiltrating endometriosis, and the indication of surgery will be conducted. Sensitivity analyses restricted to studies with low risk of bias will be performed. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide information on the rates of complications for different surgical approaches and procedures for the treatment of endometriosis. It will contribute to inform patients when making decisions regarding their care. Identifying potential determinants of complications will also help to improve care by identifying women being at higher risk of complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Systematic review registration: CRD42021293865.
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 | 0.074 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.010 |
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".