Clinical prediction rule to determine the need for repeat ERCP after endoscopic treatment of postsurgical bile leaks
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background and AimsIn patients who have undergone ERCP with biliary stenting for postsurgical bile leaks, the optimal method (ERCP or gastroscopy) and timing of stent removal is controversial. We developed a clinical prediction rule to identify cases in which a repeat ERCP is unnecessary.MethodsPopulation-based study of all patients who underwent ERCP for management of surgically induced bile leaks between 2000 and 2012. Multivariate and binary recursive partitioning analyses were performed to generate a rule predicting the absence of biliary pathology on repeat endoscopic evaluation.ResultsA total of 259 patients were included. On multivariate analysis, postsurgical normal alkaline phosphatase (ALP; OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.03-4.99), time from surgery to first ERCP < 8 days (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.15-5.31), and minor leak with no other pathology on initial ERCP (OR, 6.74; 95% CI, 1.75-25.89) were independently associated with the absence of persistent bile leak and other pathology on repeat ERCP. The derived rule included laparoscopic cholecystectomy, normal postsurgical ALP, minor leak with no other pathology on initial ERCP, and an interval from initial to repeat ERCP between 4 and 8 weeks. When all 4 criteria were met, the rule had a sensitivity of 94% (95% CI, 83%-99%) and a negative predictive value of 93% (95% CI, 81%-99%). Optimism-adjusted sensitivity and negative predictive value were 88% (95% CI, 76%-96%) and 86% (95% CI, 73%-96%), respectively.ConclusionsThis clinical decision rule identifies patients who can have their biliary stents removed via gastroscopy, which may improve patient safety and healthcare utilization. In patients who have undergone ERCP with biliary stenting for postsurgical bile leaks, the optimal method (ERCP or gastroscopy) and timing of stent removal is controversial. We developed a clinical prediction rule to identify cases in which a repeat ERCP is unnecessary. Population-based study of all patients who underwent ERCP for management of surgically induced bile leaks between 2000 and 2012. Multivariate and binary recursive partitioning analyses were performed to generate a rule predicting the absence of biliary pathology on repeat endoscopic evaluation. A total of 259 patients were included. On multivariate analysis, postsurgical normal alkaline phosphatase (ALP; OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.03-4.99), time from surgery to first ERCP < 8 days (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.15-5.31), and minor leak with no other pathology on initial ERCP (OR, 6.74; 95% CI, 1.75-25.89) were independently associated with the absence of persistent bile leak and other pathology on repeat ERCP. The derived rule included laparoscopic cholecystectomy, normal postsurgical ALP, minor leak with no other pathology on initial ERCP, and an interval from initial to repeat ERCP between 4 and 8 weeks. When all 4 criteria were met, the rule had a sensitivity of 94% (95% CI, 83%-99%) and a negative predictive value of 93% (95% CI, 81%-99%). Optimism-adjusted sensitivity and negative predictive value were 88% (95% CI, 76%-96%) and 86% (95% CI, 73%-96%), respectively. This clinical decision rule identifies patients who can have their biliary stents removed via gastroscopy, which may improve patient safety and healthcare utilization.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».