MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison between staged laparoscopic technique in children with high intra-abdominal undescended testis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4394842204 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Safendra Siregar, Jupiter Sibarani, Zola Wijayanti, Albert Ciam

Bibliographic record

VenueF1000Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTesticular diseases and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpen peer reviewPlant biologyMedicineMeta-analysisPhysiologyGeneral surgeryPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns3:p>Background This study performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of the staged laparoscopic Fowler-Stephens Laparoscopic Orchiopexy (FSLO) and Staged Laparoscopic Traction Orchiopexy (SLTO) in patients with intra-abdominal testes (IAT). Methods This study reviewed literature published from 2016 to 2024. A systematic literature search was conducted on three databases: PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar, using keywords (High intra abdominal testis) AND (("Fowler Stephens laparoscopic orchiopexy" OR (FSLO)) OR (Staged Laparoscopic traction orchiopexy OR (SLTO)). Non-randomized trials and observational studies comparing staged laparoscopic FSLO and SLTO, without any time range restriction are included. Studies without FLSO orchidopexy as a control, case reports, case studies, duplicate publication, no full text and non-English studies are excluded. This study used the PRISMA protocol, the Jadad Scale, and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) to evaluate the included studies. To analyze statistical data, the Review Manager (RevMan) software was used. The Chi-squared test was used to calculate statistical heterogeneity in the meta-analysis. Results There were 240 patients from 5 studies (109 in the SLTO group and 131 FSLO in group). The primary outcome of this study is testicular descent and atrophy. There were no significant differences in testicular descent (RR:1.08[0.96 – 1.23],p&lt;0.20,I2:0%) and atrophy rate (RR:0.45[0.19 – 1.09],p&lt;0.08,I2:0%). Secondary outcomes are the duration of operation in both the first and second stages. Statistical analysis reveals a significantly lower first-stage operation time in the FSLO group (MD:9.31[7.08,11.55], p&lt;0.05;I2:94%). At the same time, lower second-stage operation times are significantly reported in the SLTO group (MD:-4.05[-7.99,-0.12],p&lt;0.05; I2:60%). Conclusions In terms of testicular descent and testicular atrophy the SLTO technique yields similar results to the FSLO technique. Both techniques have advantages and disadvantages, and we recommend SLTO as the first choice in children with a high IAT of &lt;4 cm. PROSPERO registration CRD42023412407</ns3:p>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF1000ResearchSame topicTesticular diseases and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207