Efficacy and safety of terlipressin infusion during liver surgery: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Liver disease causes 2 million deaths annually, accounting for 4% of all deaths worldwide. Liver surgery is one of the effective therapeutic options. Bleeding is a major complication during liver surgery. Perioperative bleeding and allogeneic blood transfusion may deteriorate the prognosis. Terlipressin (TP), a synthetic analogue of the antidiuretic hormone, may reduceblood loss during abdominal surgery. Several clinical centres have attempted to use TP during liver surgery, but the evidence for its effectiveness in reducing blood loss and the need for allogeneic blood transfusion, as well as its safety during the perioperative period, remains unclear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TP in reducing blood loss and allogeneic blood transfusion needs during liver surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science for studies on perioperative use of TP during liver surgery from inception to July 2023. We will limit the language to English, and two reviewers will independently screen and select articles. The primary study outcomes are estimated blood loss and the need for allogeneic blood transfusion. Secondary outcomes include operating time, intensive care unit stay, length of stay, intraoperative urine output, acute kidney injury rate, postoperative complications, hepatic and renal function during follow-up, and TP-related adverse effects. We will include studies that met the following criteria: (1) randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies or case-control studies; (2) the publication time was till July 2023; (3) adult patients (≥18 years old) undergoing elective liver surgery; (4) comparison of TP with other treatments and (5) the study includes at least one outcome. We will exclude animal studies, case reports, case series, non-original articles, reviews, paediatric articles, non-controlled trials, unpublished articles, non-English articles and other studies that are duplicates. We will use Review Manager V.5.3 software for meta-analysis and perform stratification analysis for the study quality of RCTs based on the Jadad score. For cohort or case-control studies, the study quality will be analysed based on Newcastle-Ottawa Scale scores. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation will be used to assess confidence in the cumulative evidence. For primary outcomes, we will conduct subgroup analyses based on meta-regression. We will also perform leave-one-out sensitivity analyses to evaluate the effect of each individual study on the combined results by removing the individual studies one by one for outcomes with significant heterogeneity. The protocol follows the Cochrane Handbook for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is a secondary analysis of existing data; therefore, it does not require ethical approval. We will disseminate the results through peer-reviewed publications. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023450333.
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 | 0.034 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.002 |
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".