Tubularized incised plate urethroplasty and grafted tubularized incised plate urethroplasty: systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Hypospadias is one of the most common genital birth defects. There are around 300 various techniques available for the repair of hypospadias. This study aims to compare the reported outcomes of Tubularized incised plate urethroplasty (TIP) and Grafted TIP (GTIP) repair in children undergoing primary hypospadias repair. Methods This meta-analysisadhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and we framed our research question using the population, intervention, control and outcomes format. We conducted comprehensive electronic searches across various databases, employing a Boolean search strategy with predefined search terms. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included for quantitative analysis. Results Totally, 10 RCTs met our inclusion criteria for quantitative analysis. The results indicated that urethrocutaneous fistula, glans dehiscence, and stricture rates were comparable between the two groups. The incidence of meatal stenosis was found to be significantly lower in the GTIP group with a relative risk (RR) of 0.32 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.67). Conclusion The coucomes UCF, glans dehiscence, and stricture rates were comparable between the two groups. Notably, the incidence of meatal stenosis was found to be significantly lower in the grafted TIP group. In terms of operative time, our quantitative synthesis demonstrated that the TIP group had a shorter operative time than the GTIP group with significant heterogeneity.
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 | 0.017 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".