Comparison of outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The treatment of children with pelviureteric junction obstruction (PUJO) has naturally progressed from open, to minimally invasive approaches, including laparoscopic pyeloplasty and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP). The RALP is now considered to be the gold standard for paediatric patients with PUJO, except for smaller infants due to size limitations. Our systematic review aims to synthesise all the available evidence regarding key postoperative outcomes for the three surgical approaches to pyeloplasties in children. Our outcomes of interest include, but are not limited to, the reoperation rate, length of hospital stay and postoperative complications as classified by the Clavien-Dindo grading system. A comprehensive assessment of all three methods in paediatric patients has yet to be conducted in the literature to date. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search of the MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases will be conducted. Screening, data extraction, statistical analysis and reporting will be performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Included papers will be full-text manuscripts written between 1947 and March 2024, comparing the outcomes and complications of open, laparoscopic and RALP. Quality and study bias will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa score and, if relevant, the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials. This present protocol is written in accordance with the PRISMA Protocol 2015 checklist, ensuring that the highest methodological standards are adhered to. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval shall be required, as this is a review of already published literature. Findings will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at international and national conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023456779.
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 | 0.040 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.004 |
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".