MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405006411 · doi:10.1111/bju.16601

Comparing ambulatory to inpatient percutaneous nephrolithotomy: systematic review and meta‐analysis

2024· review· en· W4405006411 on OpenAlexaff
Katie Du, Michael Uy, Alan Cheng, Braden Millan, Bobby Shayegan, Edward D. Matsumoto

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous nephrolithotomyAmbulatoryConfidence intervalSubgroup analysisPopulationRelative riskMeta-analysisPerioperativeProspective cohort studyCohort studyEmergency medicineSystematic reviewInternal medicineSurgeryMEDLINEPercutaneous

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the differences in perioperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes between inpatient and ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) with a subgroup analysis of same-day discharge (SDD) patients, summarise published ambulatory pathways and compare cost and satisfaction data. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was completed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered a priori with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42023438692). Ambulatory PCNL was defined as patients who were discharged after an overnight stay (≤23 h) and SDD was considered a subgroup discharged on postoperative Day 0. RESULTS: A total of 25 studies were included in the systematic review, of which 12 comparative studies were utilised for meta-analysis. We had a pooled population of 2463 patients, of which 1956 (79%) ambulatory (747 [30%] SDD) and 507 (21%) inpatients. The ambulatory PCNL cohort had fewer overall complications (risk ratio [RR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.90; P = 0.010); however, there were no differences in major complications (i.e., Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥III; RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.17-1.21; P = 0.12), emergency department visits (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.69-1.74; P = 0.71), 30-day readmission (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.54-2.21; P = 0.81) or readmission at any point (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.53-1.88; P = 0.99). The ambulatory PCNL cohort was more likely to be stone-free defined by imaging (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.66; P = 0.005); however, when stone-free was inclusive of any definition there was no difference in stone-free rates (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.98-1.23; P = 0.10). Subgroup analysis of SDD did not result in any significant differences. Cost savings ranged from $932.37 to a mean (standard deviation) $5327 (442) United States Dollars per case. No studies reported patient satisfaction data. CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory PCNL seems to be a safe and efficacious model for select patients. Selection bias likely influenced ambulatory outcomes; however, this supports overall safety of current ambulatory inclusion criteria.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.038
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207