Somatostatin Analogues for the Treatment of Enterocutaneous Fistulas: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enterocutaneous fistulas are abnormal connections between the skin and gastrointestinal tract that most commonly occur after surgery. Somatostatin analogues have been used in their treatment. The objective of the present study was to determine if somatostatin analogues shorten the time to closure of postoperative enterocutaneous fistulas compared to placebo. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, as well as reference lists of textbooks and relevant articles for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing somatostatin analogues to control in the treatment of postoperative enterocutaneous fistulas. We systematically assessed trials for eligibility and validity, and extracted data in duplicate. We pooled data across studies using a random effects model. RESULTS: Our initial search yielded 720 studies, of which eight RCT ultimately met eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Somatostatin analogues significantly decreased the time to closure of fistulas compared to placebo {weighted mean difference (WMD)--6.37 days [95% confidence interval (CI) -8.33, -4.42]}. The duration of hospital stay was also significantly decreased with somatostatin analogue treatment [WMD--4.53 days (95% CI -8.29, -0.77)]. No difference in mortality was identified with somatostatin treatment [RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.49-1.55)]. CONCLUSIONS: Somatostatin analogues appear to decrease the duration of enterocutaneous fistulas and duration of hospital stay, but no mortality benefit was identified. The quality of evidence for outcomes in this review ranged from low to moderate. Future large, blinded, RCT would be useful in improving the confidence in the treatment effects identified in this systematic review and meta-analysis.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.033 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".