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 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 | 0.001 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".