MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2939935187 · doi:10.1186/s13643-019-1002-z

Influence of adjuvant antibiotics on fistula formation following incision and drainage of anorectal abscesses: a systematic review protocol

2019· review· en· W2939935187 on OpenAlexafffund
Laura Baker, Lara Williams, Remington Winter, Caitlin Cahill, Alexandra Davis, Dean Fergusson

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnorectal Disease Treatments and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicineIncision and drainageSurgeryProtocol (science)AdjuvantDrainageFistulaAntibioticsAnal fistulaAbscessGeneral surgeryInternal medicinePathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Development of fistula-in-ano following incision and drainage (I&D) of anorectal abscesses occurs in over 30% of patients. It is associated with significant patient morbidity and societal cost. The use of antibiotics following drainage is controversial, with randomized controlled trials reporting opposing conclusions regarding their influence on the rate of fistula formation. Given the significant burden associated with their development, it is imperative to determine strategies to minimize their occurrence. The objective of this review is to summarize the available evidence on the role of antibiotics following I&D of anorectal abscesses on fistula formation. Secondary objectives include determining if antibiotics are associated with morbidity, repeat presentation to the emergency department, and requirement for reoperation. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, http://apps.who.int/trialsearch , and clinicaltrials.gov will be searched to identify published and ongoing unpublished interventional and observational studies evaluating the role of antibiotics post I&D on the incidence of fistula formation. There will be no restriction on language, date, or journal. Title and abstracts as well as full texts will be screened in duplicate based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and ROBINS-I will be used to assess risk of bias in randomized and non-randomized studies, respectively. Our primary outcome is the incidence of fistula formation; secondary outcomes include morbidity, representation to ED, and reoperation. Study heterogeneity will be calculated with Cochran’s Q test, P value, and I2 index. SASS (version 9.4) will be used for meta-analysis. This is the first study to review the available evidence on adjuvant antibiotics and incidence of fistula formation following I&D of anorectal abscesses. PROSPERO CRD42018092044

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.012
Bibliometrics0.0120.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.004

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.352 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicAnorectal Disease Treatments and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207