MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378349265 · doi:10.3389/fsurg.2023.1150053

Incidence and risk factors of postoperative acute pancreatitis after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4378349265 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhouyu Wu, Kezhen Zong, Baoyong Zhou, Kun-Li Yin, Anlan Zhang, Ming Li

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Surgery · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePancreaticoduodenectomyOdds ratioIncidence (geometry)Cochrane LibraryMeta-analysisInternal medicineAcute pancreatitisPancreatitisSubgroup analysisSurgeryPancreas

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Postoperative acute pancreatitis (POAP) is a specific complication after pancreatectomy. The acute inflammatory response of the residual pancreas may affect the healing of pancreatoenteric anastomoses, leading to postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPFs), abdominal infections, and even progressive systemic reactions, conditions that negatively affect patients' prognoses and can cause death. However, to the best of our knowledge, no systematic reviews or meta-analytic studies have assessed the incidence and risk factors of POAP after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Method We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant literature describing the outcomes of POAP after PD until November 25, 2022, and we used the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale to assess the quality of the studies. Next, we pooled the incidence of POAP and the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the risk factors using a random-effect meta-analysis. I2 tests were used to assess heterogeneity between the studies. Results We analyzed data from 7,164 patients after PD from 23 articles that met the inclusion criteria for this study. The subgroup results of the meta-analysis by different POAP diagnostic criteria showed that the incidences of POAP were 15% (95% CI, 5–38) in the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery group, 51% (95% CI, 42–60) in the Connor group, 7% (95% CI, 2–24) in the Atlanta group, and 5% (95% CI, 2–14) in the unclear group. Being a woman [OR (1.37, 95% CI, 1.06–1.77)] or having a soft pancreatic texture [OR (2.56, 95% CI, 1.70–3.86)] were risk factors of POAP after PD. Conclusion The results showed that POAP was common after PD, and its incidence varied widely according to different definitions. Large-scale reports are still needed, and surgeons should remain aware of this complication. Systematic Review Registration identifier: CRD42022375124.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.041
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.293 · 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
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in SurgerySame topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207