MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411436986 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-096955

Short-term and long-term outcomes of hybrid revascularisation procedures in peripheral artery disease: a systematic review protocol

2025· review· en· W4411436986 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maram Darwish, Emily Morgan, Lewis Meecham

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Artery Disease Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCINAHLSystematic reviewData extractionMEDLINECochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisQuality of life (healthcare)Intensive care medicineSurgeryPsychological interventionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a chronic condition causing arterial narrowing or blockage, leading to significant morbidity and mortality. Hybrid revascularisation combines open surgical and endovascular techniques to manage multilevel disease by addressing inflow and outflow obstructions. Despite increasing adoption, evidence on the long-term outcomes of these procedures remains limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term outcomes of hybrid revascularisation procedures in PAD, including patency rates, limb salvage, survival, reintervention rates and complications, and to provide evidence-based insights for clinical practice and research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. It will include randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and large case series (≥10 patients, with at least 1 year of follow-up) assessing adult patients undergoing hybrid revascularisation for PAD. Primary outcomes are patency rates, limb salvage and survival; secondary outcomes include complication rates, functional improvements and quality of life. Searches will be conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and ClinicalTrials.gov. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed independently in duplicate by two reviewers. Meta-analyses with random-effects models will summarise findings where feasible, while narrative synthesis will address instances of insufficient data. Subgroup analyses will explore outcomes by demographics, lesion characteristics and procedural details. Risk of bias will be assessed using Cochrane and Newcastle-Ottawa tools. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024615809.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.019
Bibliometrics0.0130.010
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0630.006

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicPeripheral Artery Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207