Postcholecystectomy diarrhoea rate and predictive factors: a systematic review of the literature
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: Cholecystectomy is one of the most common surgical procedures performed worldwide to treat gallstone-related disease. Postcholecystectomy diarrhoea (PCD) is a well-reported phenomenon, however, the actual rate, predictive factors and mechanism of action have not been well determined. A systematic review was undertaken to determine the rate and predictive factors associated with diarrhoea in the postcholecystectomy setting. METHODS: The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol. Databases searched included Medline, Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane and Google Scholar up to 29 September 2020. The inclusion criteria consisted of cohort studies or randomised trials which investigated the rate of PCD and predictive factors. Case reports, case series, conference abstracts and expert opinion pieces were excluded as were other systematic reviews as all the original articles from those reviews were included in this review. Papers that did not include PCD as a separate entity were excluded. Bias assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies and the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised controlled trials as appropriate. Data were extracted by two authors (AF and JAA) and an overall rate of PCD was calculated. Predictive factors were also extracted and compared between studies. RESULTS: 1204 papers were obtained and 21 were found to contain relevant information about PCD, including the number of patients developing diarrhoea, method of symptom assessment and time of onset postcholecystectomy. A pooled total of 3476 patients were included across the identified studies with 462 (13.3%) patients developing PCD. Possible predictive factors varied across all studies, with characteristics such as gender, age and weight of patients postulated as being predictive of PCD, with no agreement across studies. DISCUSSION: PCD is therefore relatively common (13.3%). This has important implications for patient consent. Patients ought to be investigated early for bile acid diarrhoea in suspected PCD. More studies are required to determine the possible predictive factors for PCD. Limitations of the study included that most studies were not powered for calculation of PCD, and assessment methods between studies varied. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019140444.
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 | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».