MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6908119062 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.4402190.v1

The endovascular repair of blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury in Asia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2019· other· en· W6908119062 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2019
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBluntMortality rateRetrospective cohort studyCohortAortic repairSystematic reviewCohort studyAortographyMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionBlunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury, the second leading cause of death from trauma, poses unique challenges in its management. However, there has not yet been a corresponding consolidated series of outcomes reported in Asia, which this systematic review aims to address.MethodThis review was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Searches were performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Database for studies performed in Asia reporting the endovascular management of blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Meta-analyses of pooled proportions were performed using the metaprop command in STATA. This review has been prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018083773).ResultsSixteen retrospective cohort studies were included, reporting a total of 238 patients. The pooled Injury Severity Score was 32.5 (95%CI 27.8–37.1). The pooled mean time to operation from diagnosis was 39.2 hours (95%CI 24.6–53.8 hours), and operation time was 100 min (95%CI 63.5–136.5 min). The pooled rate of procedural conversion from endovascular repair to open surgery was 0.17% (95%CI 0–3.7%), and the proportion of left subclavian artery coverage was 55% (95%CI 37–72%). The pooled prevalence of intra-operative all-cause and aortic-related mortality was 0.72% (95%CI 0–4.9%) and 0.27% (95%CI 0–3.8%), respectively. The pooled prevalence of 30-day all-cause and aortic-related mortality was 2.2% (95%CI 0.16–5.6%) and 2.1% (95%CI 0–3.7%), respectively. In terms of 30-day complication, the pooled prevalence rates of type 1 endoleak, endograft complications, vascular access injury, strokes, and aortic re-rupture were 1.2%, 0.34%, 0.14%, 0.02%, and 0.01%, respectively. There were no cases of types II and III endoleak, and renal failure.ConclusionShort- to mid-term results for thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury in Asia are encouraging. However, there is a distinct disparity in reporting across Asia. We propose a prospective database for outcome reporting post thoracic endovascular aortic repair in this patient population, and ongoing follow up to assess long-term efficacy of this treatment strategy.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.034
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals Data→French-language works237,207→