Comparative effects of off-pump and multiple cardiopulmonary bypass strategies in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Multiple revascularisation strategies with or without cardiac arrest have been developed to minimise the negative effects of cardiopulmonary bypass interventions during coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. Several observational and randomised studies have evaluated the efficacy of these interventions. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of four prevalent revascularisation strategies with/without cardiopulmonary bypass interventions in CABG surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomised controlled trials and observational cohort studies comparing outcomes of CABG surgery under conventional on-pump, off-pump, on-pump beating heart and minimal extracorporeal circulation technology. All English articles published before 30 November 2022 will be considered. The primary outcome will be 30-day mortality. The secondary outcomes will be various early and late adverse events after CABG surgery. The Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale will be used to assess the quality of included articles. A random-effects pairwise meta-analysis will be performed to report the head-to-head comparison. Then, the network meta-analysis will be performed using a Bayesian framework with random-effects models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This research does not require the approval of an ethics committee as it relies on reviewing literature and does not involve dealing with humans or animals. The findings of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023381279.
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 | 0.052 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.005 |
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".