Should We Continue Using Palmer’s Test to Check the Correct Positioning of the Veress Needle During Laparoscopic Access?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to check the efficacy of Palmer’s test in preventing failed access to the abdominal cavity and the surgical complications associated with these maneuvers. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, observational, prospective cohort study. The exposed cohort (n = 390) consisted of patients for whom Palmer’s test was employed during maneuvers to access the abdominal cavity, while the non-exposed cohort (n = 390) included patients for whom only the pressure test was employed to ensure the correct positioning of the Veress needle. Results: Our study’s results show that implementing Palmer’s test appears not to be useful for determining the correct positioning of the Veress needle when compared with the isolated reading of intraabdominal pressure. Additionally, the use of the Palmer’s test entails a greater risk of complications and adverse effects during access maneuvers. Conclusions: The use of Palmer’s test in addition to the reading of intraabdominal pressure has not shown effectiveness in preventing failed access to the abdominal cavity or the associated complications.
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 | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".