MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414742823 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1628394

Meta-analysis of scar formation and depression and anxiety symptoms in patients after cardiac surgery

2025· review· en· W4414742823 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yuting Wang, Wenyi Liu, Lixin Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)AnxietyCardiac surgeryRandomized controlled trialDepressive symptoms

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The vertical median skin scar associated with median sternotomy, a standard approach for most cardiac surgeries, can cause psychological distress in patients, particularly depression and anxiety. The impact of scarring after cardiac surgery on depression and anxiety symptoms in patients is not well understood. Aim The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of scarring on depressive and anxiety symptoms in patients after cardiac surgery. Methods To investigate the relationship between scar formation and depression and anxiety symptoms in patients after cardiac surgery. We searched databases such as Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase for studies published before August 2024 on scar descriptions and psychological states after cardiac surgery. After data extraction and quality assessment, we used RevMan5.4 to analyze the depression and anxiety symptoms of patients after scar formation. Two authors independently performed the focused analyses and reached a final consensus on the included studies, which were subsequently quality checked and risk of bias assessed by a third author. Results Four studies were included in the meta-analysis. All 4 studies used Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) to assess scar, and one study also combined Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) for scar assessment. Meta-analysis results show that Full sternotomy has a smaller scar score than Limited sternotomy (OR = 0.94 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28-1.61]; P = 0.005), and there is no significant heterogeneity between the two groups (I2 = 0%). And the postoperative depression score in the Full sternotomy group was higher than that in the Limited sternotomy group (OR = 1.61 [95%CI 0.63-2.60]; P = 0.001), and there was no significant heterogeneity between the two groups (I2 = 0%). However, there was no statistical difference in postoperative anxiety scores between the two groups (OR = 0.70 [95%CI 1.40-2.80]; P = 0.51). There was slight heterogeneity between the two groups (I2 = 58%), so a random effects model was used. Conclusion In conclusion, patients with more severe scarring after cardiac surgery may have more severe depressive symptoms, but adequately powered randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.061
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Psychiatry→Same topicCardiac Health and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→