MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Digital Health Interventions and Patient Safety in Abdominal Surgery

2024· review· en· W4395663617 on OpenAlexaff
Artem Grygorian, Diego Montaño, Mahdieh Shojaa, Maximilian Ferencak, Norbert Schmitz

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEnhanced Recovery After Surgery
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionData extractionSystematic reviewMEDLINEPerioperativeRandomized controlled trialCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisTelemedicinePopulationEmergency departmentCohortCohort studyPatient safetyHealth careEmergency medicineSurgeryInternal medicineNursingEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Over the past 2 decades, several digital technology applications have been used to improve clinical outcomes after abdominal surgery. The extent to which these telemedicine interventions are associated with improved patient safety outcomes has not been assessed in systematic and meta-analytic reviews. Objective: To estimate the implications of telemedicine interventions for complication and readmission rates in a population of patients with abdominal surgery. Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were queried to identify relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies published from inception through February 2023 that compared perioperative telemedicine interventions with conventional care and reported at least 1 patient safety outcome. Study Selection: Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts to exclude irrelevant studies as well as assessed the full-text articles for eligibility. After exclusions, 11 RCTs and 8 cohort studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis and 7 were included in the narrative review. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline and assessed for risk of bias by 2 reviewers. Meta-analytic estimates were obtained in random-effects models. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number of complications, emergency department (ED) visits, and readmissions. Results: A total of 19 studies (11 RCTs and 8 cohort studies) with 10 536 patients were included. The pooled risk ratio (RR) estimates associated with ED visits (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.94) and readmissions (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.58-0.78) favored the telemedicine group. There was no significant difference in the risk of complications between patients in the telemedicine and conventional care groups (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.77-1.43). Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that perioperative telehealth interventions are associated with reduced risk of readmissions and ED visits after abdominal surgery. However, the mechanisms of action for specific types of abdominal surgery are still largely unknown and warrant further research.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.133
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.133
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.313 · 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
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

Citations33
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryFrench-language works237,207