Short-term and long-term outcomes of hybrid revascularisation procedures in peripheral artery disease: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".