A comparison of general anesthesia versus local anesthesia in open globe injuries: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveLocal anesthesia represents an alternative to general anesthesia in selected patients undergoing repair for open globe injuries. This study aimed to evaluate and compare visual acuity and clinical outcomes in such patients.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with open globe injuries were included. Out of 551 articles screened, four observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Standardized Mean Differences (SMD) for continuous and Risk Ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes were pooled using the Inverse Variance method with a Random Effects model. Outcomes included visual acuity, wound location, wound length, and operative time.ResultsFour retrospective case series comprising 1,690 patients were included. All studies had low risk of bias per the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. No significant difference was observed in best corrected visual acuity between groups (MD = -0.18; 95% CI: -0.45 to 0.08; p = 0.17; I² = 55%). Patients in the local anesthesia group had more anterior wound locations (MD = 1.33; 95% CI: 1.06-1.66; p = 0.01; I² = 65%). Wound length (MD = -4.97; 95% CI: -5.95 to -3.98; p < 0.00001; I² = 0%) and operative time (MD = -33.32; 95% CI: -40.82 to -25.82; p < 0.00001; I² = 0%) were significantly shorter.ConclusionLocal anesthesia was associated with more anterior wounds, shorter wound length, and reduced operative time without compromising visual outcomes. It may be a safe and effective alternative to general anesthesia in selected open globe injuries.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it