The effect of simethicone on postoperative ileus in patients undergoing colorectal surgery (SPOT), a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postoperative ileus is a poorly understood multifactorial outcome following colorectal surgery that presents significant clinical challenges and contributes to increased morbidity, length of stay, and healthcare cost. To date, there are few pharmacological interventions that shorten the duration of postoperative ileus. OBJECTIVE: This study is the first to evaluate the efficacy of simethicone in treating postoperative ileus symptoms in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. DESIGN: A multicenter, double-blinded, placebo controlled randomized controlled trial. SETTINGS: This trial was conducted at two academic tertiary care centres in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 118 patients undergoing colorectal surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive either a five-day course of oral simethicone (n = 58) or a placebo (n = 60). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to first passage of flatus. Secondary outcomes included time to first bowel movement, postoperative length of stay, and postoperative pain. Statistical analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Statistical significance set at p = 0.05. RESULTS: The median time to first passage of flatus in simethicone arm was 25.2 h and 26.7 h in controls (P = 0.98). There were no significant differences in the median time to first bowel movement (simethicone = 41.1 h vs. control = 42.9 h, P = 0.91) or median length of hospital stay (simethicone = 4.5 days vs. control = 4.0 days, P = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to show a difference in return of gastrointestinal motility in patients receiving simethicone following colorectal surgery. Postoperative ileus remains a significant clinical and economic burden to the healthcare system and further research is needed to identify a reliable and effective method of treatment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".