MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898688345 · doi:10.1097/dcr.0000000000001149

Operative Strategies for Perforated Diverticulitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2018· review· en· W2898688345 on OpenAlex
Sergio A. Acuña, Trevor Wood, Tyler R. Chesney, Fahima Dossa, Steven D. Wexner, Fayez A. Quereshy, Sami A. Chadi, Nancy N. Baxter

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiseases of the Colon & Rectum · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiverticular Disease and Complications
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiverticulitisMeta-analysisStoma (medicine)SurgeryCochrane LibraryRelative riskRandomized controlled trialAnastomosisLaparoscopyGeneral surgeryInternal medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The traditional approach for perforated diverticulitis, the Hartmann procedure, has considerable morbidity and the challenge of stoma reversal. Alternative procedures, including primary resection and anastomosis and laparoscopic lavage, have been proposed but remain controversial. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare operative strategies for perforated diverticulitis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the grey literature were searched from inception to October 2017. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized clinical trials evaluating operative strategies for perforated diverticulitis. INTERVENTIONS: Hartmann procedure, primary resection and anastomosis, and laparoscopic lavage were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data were independently extracted by 2 investigators. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Pooled risk ratios for major complications, reoperation, and mortality were determined using random-effects models. RESULTS: Six trials including 626 patients with perforated diverticulitis were identified. Laparoscopic lavage and sigmoidectomy had comparable rates of early reoperation and postoperative mortality; major complications (Clavien-Dindo >IIIa) were more frequent after laparoscopic lavage (RR = 1.68 (95% CI, 1.10-2.56); 3 trials, 305 patients). Comparing approaches for sigmoidectomy, primary resection and anastomosis had similar rates of major complications (RR = 0.88 (95% CI, 0.49-1.55); 3 trials, 255 patients) and postoperative mortality (RR = 0.58 (95% CI, 0.20-1.70); 3 trials, 254 patients) compared with the Hartmann procedure. However, patients who underwent primary resection and anastomosis were more likely to be stoma free at 12 months compared with the Hartmann procedure (RR = 1.40 (95% CI, 1.18-1.67); 4 trials, 283 patients) and to experience fewer major complications related to the stoma reversal procedure (RR = 0.26 (95% CI, 0.07-0.89); 4 trials, 186 patients). LIMITATIONS: There were no limitations to this study. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic lavage is associated with increased risk of major complications versus primary resection for Hinchey III diverticulitis. The lower rate of stoma reversal and higher rate of complications after the Hartmann procedure suggest primary resection and anastomosis as the optimal management of perforated diverticulitis.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it