The Effects of Reinforcement Techniques in Sleeve Gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: Protocol for a Web-Based Survey, Systematic Review, and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effects of reinforcement are still controversial in bariatric surgery, and variations may exist in using this technique. OBJECTIVE: This protocol describes a study that aims to survey the views of bariatric surgeons on reinforcement techniques and evaluate the effects of applying reinforcement techniques in sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). METHODS: This study is composed of 2 parts. Part 1 will investigate the differences of using reinforcement techniques among surgeons worldwide who perform SG or RYGB through a survey. The survey will be conducted by email and social media. Part 2 will evaluate the safety and effectiveness of using omentopexy or staple line reinforcement in SG and RYGB by systematic review and meta-analysis. In this part, literature searches will be performed in English databases, including CENTRAL, EMBASE CINAHL, Web of Science, and PubMed, and Chinese databases, including Wanfang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Database of Chinese Technical Periodicals, and Chinese Biological Medicine, from their establishment to November 2023. Randomized controlled trials and case-control studies will be included. The primary outcomes are rates of postoperative bleeding and gastric leakage. The secondary outcomes include anastomotic stenosis, surgical site infection, reoperation, estimated intraoperative blood loss, operative time (minutes), length of hospital stay (days), overall complications, and 30-day mortality. The meta-analysis will be conducted using RevMan 5.4 under the random-effects model, as well as through extensive subgroup and sensitivity analyses. P values <0.05 will be considered statistically significant. This study was registered with PROSPERO (Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) in accordance with the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols). RESULTS: The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The web-based survey and initial title or abstract review of papers identified by the search strategy will be completed in November 2023. The second round of title or abstract review and downloading of the papers for full-text inclusion will be completed in January 2024. We aim to complete data extraction and meta-analysis by February 2024 and expect to publish the findings by the end of March 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This study aims to investigate the impact of reinforcement techniques on reducing the incidence of postoperative complications in SG and RYGB procedures and provide assistance for standardizing the procedures of SG and RYGB operations for bariatric surgeons. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022376438; https://tinyurl.com/2d53uf8n. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/50677.
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 | 0.055 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 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".