Prevalence of pulmonary dysfunction and its risk factors in patients with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pulmonary complications frequently occur as comorbidities in individuals with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia (TDT). Despite their clinical significance, the existing literature lacks a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the prevalence and risk factors for pulmonary dysfunction in this patient cohort. Therefore, we propose to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to report the prevalence and associated risk factors of pulmonary dysfunction in TDT patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review and meta-analysis will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. We will search PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Scopus and Web of Science to identify English-language literature from the inception of each database up to 31 May 2024. We will include studies that involve TDT patients and report on the method of pulmonary function assessment, the proportion of pulmonary dysfunction and the analysis of risk factors for pulmonary dysfunction. The study designs included will be cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. Exclusions will apply to studies on non-TDT or patients with other diseases, reviews, case reports and animal experiments, as well as duplicated published studies, studies without full-text availability or studies from which raw data cannot be extracted. The screening process, including title, abstract and full texts, will be conducted independently by two reviewers. Data extraction will be performed following standardised protocols. The quality of the included studies will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality criteria. The meta-analysis will be conducted using Stata 14.0 and Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4 software, incorporating subgroup analyses, heterogeneity assessments and publication bias evaluations to ensure the robustness and reliability of the findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As the data for this systematic review and meta-analysis are sourced exclusively from previously published literature, there is no requirement for ethical approval. The dissemination of the results will occur through publication in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal and presentations at relevant scientific conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024504353.
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 | 0.082 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.005 |
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".