MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389142039 · doi:10.1093/dote/doad066

Does prehabilitation before esophagectomy improve postoperative outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4389142039 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin R. An, Vanessa Seijas, Michael S. Xu, Linda Grüßer, Sapna Humar, Amabelle A Moreno, Marvee Turk, Koushik Kasanagottu, Talal Alzghari, Arnaldo Dimagli, Michael A. Ko, Jonathan Villena‐Vargas, Stefania Papatheodorou, Mario Gaudino

Bibliographic record

VenueDiseases of the Esophagus · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CentreToronto General HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePrehabilitationEsophagectomyRandomized controlled trialOdds ratioMeta-analysisObservational studyConfidence intervalJadad scaleIntensive care unitInternal medicineEsophageal cancerSurgeryPhysical therapyCochrane LibraryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is associated with high morbidity. It remains unclear whether prehabilitation, a strategy aimed at optimizing patients' physical and mental functioning prior to surgery, improves postoperative outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of prehabilitation on post-operative outcomes after esophagectomy. Data sources included Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PEDro, with information from 1 January 2000 to 5 August 2023. The analysis included randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared prehabilitation interventions to standard care prior to esophagectomy. A random effects model was used to generate a pooled estimate for pairwise meta-analysis, meta-analysis of proportions, and meta-analysis of means. A total of 1803 patients were included with 584 in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1219 in observational studies. In the randomized evidence, there were no significant differences between prehabilitation and control in the odds of postoperative pneumonia (15.0 vs. 18.9%, odds ratio (OR) 1.06 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66;1.72]) or pulmonary complications (14 vs. 25.6%, OR 0.68 [95% CI: 0.32;1.45]). In the observational data, there was a reduction in both postoperative pneumonia (22.5 vs. 32.9%, OR 0.48 [95% CI: 0.28;0.83]) and pulmonary complications (26.1 vs. 52.3%, OR 0.35 [95% CI: 0.17;0.75]) with prehabilitation. Hospital and intensive care unit length of stay (days), operative mortality, and severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) did not differ between groups in both the randomized data and observational data. Prehabilitation demonstrated reductions in postoperative pneumonia and pulmonary complications in observational studies, but not RCTs. The overall certainty of these findings is limited by the low quality of the available evidence.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.045
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations34
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiseases of the EsophagusSame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207