Benefit of antibiotic therapy on pouchitis after ileal pouch anal anastomosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of the study was to evaluate and collect current evidence on the effect of antibiotics in pretreatment of pouchitis after restorative ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA). Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched between 1966 and July 2008; and relevant clinical trials extracted, reviewed, and validated according to the study protocol. The outcome of interest was clinical improvement after treatment. Nine randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials were found relevant and studied but 3 of them with 70 patients were entered into meta-analysis. Pooling of the results from these trials yielded an odds ratio of 15.96 with a 95% CI of 4.20–60.70, indicating a significant OR (p<0.0001) in treatment group in comparison to the placebo group. In conclusion, the meta-analysis confirms benefit of antibiotics in management of pouchitis after IPAA operation.
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 | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".