Early operative management in patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction: population-based cost analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adhesive small bowel obstruction (aSBO) is a potentially recurrent disease. Although non-operative management is often successful, it is associated with greater risk of recurrence than operative intervention, and may have greater downstream morbidity and costs. This study aimed to compare the current standard of care, trial of non-operative management (TNOM), and early operative management (EOM) for aSBO. METHODS: Patients admitted to hospital between 2005 and 2014 in Ontario, Canada, with their first episode of aSBO were identified and propensity-matched on their likelihood to receive EOM for a cost-utility analysis using population-based administrative data. Patients were followed for 5 years to determine survival, recurrences, adverse events and inpatient costs to the healthcare system. Utility scores were attributed to aSBO-related events. Cost-utility was presented as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as Canadian dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: Some 25 150 patients were admitted for aSBO and 3174 (12·6 per cent) were managed by EOM. Patients managed by TNOM were more likely to experience recurrence of aSBO (20·9 per cent versus 13·2 per cent for EOM; P < 0·001). The lower recurrence rate associated with EOM contributed to an overall net effectiveness in terms of QALYs. The mean accumulated costs for patients managed with EOM exceeded those of TNOM ($17 951 versus $11 594 (€12 288 versus €7936) respectively; P < 0·001), but the ICER for EOM versus TNOM was $29 881 (€20 454) per QALY, suggesting cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: This retrospective study, based on administrative data, documented that EOM may be a cost-effective approach for patients with aSBO in terms of QALYs. Future guidelines on the management of aSBO may also consider the long-term outcomes and costs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".