MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389219311 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077279

Preventive strategies for low anterior resection syndrome: a protocol for systematic review and evidence mapping

2023· article· en· W4389219311 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xinyu Zhang, Yang Li, Rui-Shu Li, Shiqi Wang, Xiaonan Liu, Quan Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSystematic reviewMEDLINEChecklistCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisProtocol (science)Randomized controlled trialEvidence-based medicineGrading (engineering)Intensive care medicineSurgeryAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Rectal cancer is one of the top 10 cancers worldwide. Up to 80% of patients with rectal tumours have had sphincter-saving surgery, mainly due to the large expectation of anal preservation. However, patients tend to experience low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) after rectal resection, which is disordered bowel function that includes faecal incontinence, urgency, frequent defecation, constipation and evacuation difficulties. LARS, with an estimated prevalence of 41%, has been reported to substantially decrease the quality of life of patients. However, no comprehensive preventive strategies are currently available for LARS. This systematic review aims to synthesise evidence on the current LARS preventive strategies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist. Literature in PubMed (via Medline), Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception to July 2023 will be searched to identify articles relevant to preventive effectiveness against LARS. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool for randomised controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for clinical controlled trials, cohort studies and case-control studies will be used to assess the risk of bias. We will group the included studies by the type of LARS prevention strategy and present an overview of the main findings in the form of evidence mapping. A meta-analysis is planned if there is no substantial clinical heterogeneity between the included studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) will be used to evaluate the quality of the evidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not needed for systematic review of published data. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated at scientific conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023402886.

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)0.066
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.104
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0660.104
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.022
Bibliometrics0.0170.018
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.007

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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207