Impact of Surgical Excision of Deep Infiltrating Bowel Endometriosis on Health-Related Quality of Life: Review of Current Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The aim of this study was to systematically review the impact of surgical excision of deep infiltrating endometriosis involving the bowel, on health-related quality of life, based on the currently available literature. Methods A systematic review was completed of English-language publications in the last 10 years, which had assessed the impact of surgical excision on quality of life in patients with deep infiltrating endometriosis of the bowel using standardized, validated quality-of-life questionnaires. Results Fourteen studies were identified. Standardized questionnaires used to assess the therapeutic impact on quality of life were the SF-36, SF-12, EHP-30, EQ-5D and 15D. Overall, women with bowel endometriosis scored lower on quality-of-life measures than the general population. Regardless of which standardized, validated questionnaire was used, surgical treatment had a positive impact on health-related quality of life. Conclusions Endometriosis, in particular deep infiltrating endometriosis of the bowel, has a profound impact on the quality of life of women diagnosed with the condition. Though surgical excision has a positive short-term impact, studies are needed to assess the long-term impact on quality of life in this lifelong, chronic, recurring condition.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".