Surgical compared to percutaneous repair of aortic coarctation in the pediatric population: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Native coarctation of the aorta (CoA) accounts for 6-8% of congenital heart defects and poses significant morbidity and mortality risks if untreated. By incorporating the most recent evidence, focusing on the pediatric population, this protocol outlines the planned approach for a systematic review and meta-analysis update that will compare the long-term safety and effectiveness of surgical repair, balloon angioplasty, and stenting in CoA patients. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted. Electronic databases, including Scopus, LILACS, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, IBECS, OpenGrey, and major trial registries, will be searched for comparative studies of stent versus surgery and of balloon angioplasty versus surgery. Randomized control trials and observational studies focused on pediatric patients will be eligible. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts based on predefined eligibility criteria, and two will assess the full texts of relevant studies. Quality assessment will be done with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Pre-planned analyses, including quantitative and sensitivity analyses, are detailed within this protocol. R Studio will be used to analyze the data. The strength of the body of evidence will be assessed using GRADE. DISCUSSION: Despite recent advances in surgical and percutaneous techniques for CoA, there remains uncertainty on the best strategy for achieving long-term safety and effectiveness of treatment, particularly in the pediatric population. This study's comprehensive comparative outcomes analysis will help bridge these gaps and inform clinical decision-making. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024549170. Registered on May 20th 2024.
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 | 0.075 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 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".