Inconsistency in the Reporting Terminology of Adverse Events and Complications in Hallux Valgus Reconstruction: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surgical complications are inevitable in any surgical subspecialty. Throughout the years, many classification systems have been developed to better understand and report such complications. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the variability and frequency of reporting terms used to describe adverse events and complications in hallux valgus reconstruction. We hypothesized that the terms used would be highly inconsistent, which further promotes a need for a standardized terminology reporting system. Studies related to hallux valgus reconstruction outcomes that met our predetermined inclusion criteria were investigated to identify and report the related adverse terms and complications. Adverse terms and complications were grouped into 9 categories. Of the 142 studies included, 376 distinct terms that described adverse events or complications related to hallux valgus reconstruction were identified. Of these, 73.4% (276/376) were mentioned only once in their respective studies. Five of 376 terms were mentioned in at least 25% of the papers, and only 2 of 376 were mentioned in at least 50%. The most frequently reported adverse events were “Recurrence,” mentioned in 77 of 142 studies (54%), followed by “Nonunion,” mentioned in 76 of 142 studies (53%). The most reported category was “Bone/Joint” with 135 related terms, mentioned in 135 of 376 of the papers (95.1%). The terminology used in reporting adverse events and complications in surgical hallux valgus correction was highly inconsistent and variable. This represents yet another barrier in accurate reporting of these terms, and subsequently a difficult analysis of the outcomes related to hallux valgus reconstruction. To overcome these challenges, we suggest developing a standardized terminology reporting system. Levels of Evidence: Level III; systematic review of Level III studies and above
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".