Comparison of the effectiveness and safety between endoscope-assisted and traditional open surgery in the treatment of thyroid micropapillary carcinoma: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endoscopic thyroidectomy (ET), a surgical procedure widely accepted by surgeons, has been proven to be feasible. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ET compared to conventional open thyroidectomy (COT) in the treatment of papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC) through a meta-analysis. Medical literature databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CBM,CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP, were systematically searched for relevant studies on ET and COT for the treatment of PTMC. The search period was from January 2000 to June 2023. Two researchers independently performed literature screening and data extraction according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using Revman 5.3 software. Six studies were eventually included, involving a total of 440 patients with PTMC. The meta-analysis results demonstrated that the ET group had shorter incision length (MD = -2.96, 95 % CI: -4.27 to -1.65, P < 0.05) and less intraoperative blood loss (MD = -18.06, 95 % CI: -32.76 to -3.37, P = 0.02 < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of operative time (MD = -0.83, 95 % CI: -19.64 to 17.98, P = 0.93 > 0.05), lymph node dissection (MD = 1.03, 95 % CI: -1.47 to 3.54, P = 0.42 > 0.05), postoperative hospital stay (MD = -0.96, 95 % CI: -2.00 to 0.08, P = 0.07 > 0.05), and transient recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (OR = 3.32, 95 % CI: 0.65 to 16.90, P = 0.15 > 0.05). Compared with COT, ET has the advantages of shorter incision length, less intraoperative blood loss, better prognosis and comparable safety, making it a worthy choice for clinical application.
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 | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.057 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".