Quality of Life in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analyses—Part II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There has been burgeoning interest in quality of life (QoL) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in recent decades, with hundreds of studies each year now assessing this outcome. This paper is part 2 of a systematic review evaluating 5 key QoL comparisons within IBD states and relative to others without IBD. Part 1 examined QoL comparing IBD and a healthy/general population and other medically ill groups. Part 2, presented here, examines within-disease comparisons of active/inactive disease, Ulcerative colitis (UC) / Crohn's disease (CD), and change in QoL over time. Outcomes using generic versus IBD-specific QoL measures were also examined. Methods: Adult and pediatric studies were identified through systematic searches of 7 databases from the 1940s (where available) to October 2015. Results: Of 6173 abstracts identified, 466 were selected for final review based on controlled design and validated measurement, of which 83 unique studies (75 adult, 8 pediatric) addressed the within-disease comparisons. The pooled mean QoL scores were significantly lower in active versus inactive IBD (n = 26) and for those with CD versus UC (n = 37), consistent across IBD-specific and generic QoL measures, for almost all comparisons. There was significant improvement in QoL over time (n = 37). Study quality was generally low to moderate. The most common measures of QoL were the disease-specific Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire and generic 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) (adults) and the IBD-specific IMPACT (children). Conclusions: For adults in particular, there was strong confirmation that QoL is poorer during active disease and may be poorer for those with CD. The finding that QoL can improve over time may be encouraging for individuals with this chronic disease.
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 | 0.020 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".