European Society of Coloproctology: Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of cryptoglandular anal fistula
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AIM: The primary aim of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) Guideline Development Group (GDG) was to produce high-quality, evidence-based guidelines for the management of cryptoglandular anal fistula with input from a multidisciplinary group and using transparent, reproducible methodology. METHODS: Previously published methodology in guideline development by the ESCP has been replicated in this project. The guideline development process followed the requirements of the AGREE-S tool kit. Six phases can be identified in the methodology. Phase one sets the scope of the guideline, which addresses the diagnostic and therapeutic management of perianal abscess and cryptoglandular anal fistula in adult patients presenting to secondary care. The target population for this guideline are healthcare practitioners in secondary care and patients interested in understanding the clinical evidence available for various surgical interventions for anal fistula. Phase two involved formulation of the GDG. The GDG consisted of 21 coloproctologists, three research fellows, a radiologist and a methodologist. Stakeholders were chosen for their clinical and academic involvement in the management of anal fistula as well as being representative of the geographical variation among the ESCP membership. Five patients were recruited from patient groups to review the draft guideline. These patients attended two virtual meetings to discuss the evidence and suggest amendments. In phase three, patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcomes questions were formulated by the GDG. The GDG ratified 250 questions and chose 45 for inclusion in the guideline. In phase four, critical and important outcomes were confirmed for inclusion. Important outcomes were pain and wound healing. Critical outcomes were fistula healing, fistula recurrence and incontinence. These outcomes formed part of the inclusion criteria for the literature search. In phase five, a literature search was performed of MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, Embase (Ovid) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews by eight teams of the GDG. Data were extracted and submitted for review by the GDG in a draft guideline. The most recent systematic reviews were prioritized for inclusion. Studies published since the most recent systematic review were included in our analysis by conducting a new meta-analysis using Review manager. In phase six, recommendations were formulated, using grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations, in three virtual meetings of the GDG. RESULTS: In seven sections covering the diagnostic and therapeutic management of perianal abscess and cryptoglandular anal fistula, there are 42 recommendations. CONCLUSION: This is an up-to-date international guideline on the management of cryptoglandular anal fistula using methodology prescribed by the AGREE enterprise.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,035 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,003 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».