Non-conventional Versus Conventional Strictureplasties for Crohn’s Disease. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Treatment Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Strictureplasties [SXP] represent an alternative to bowel resection in Crohn's disease [CD]. Over the years, there has been growing interest in the role of non-conventional SXP for the treatment of extensive CD. A systematic review was performed on complications and recurrence following conventional and non-conventional SXP. METHODS: The available literature was screened according to the PRISMA statement, until June 2020. Results were categorised into three groups: studies reporting on conventional SXPs; studies with a mixed cohort of conventional and non-conventional SXPs [% non-conventional SXPs ≤15%]; and studies reporting on non-conventional SXPs. Considered endpoints were postoperative complications and overall and SXP site-specific surgical recurrence. Random-effect meta-analysis and meta-regression were used to obtain and compare combined estimates between groups. RESULTS: A total of 26 studies for a total of 1839 patients with CD were included. The pooled postoperative complication rates were was 15.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.2%-20.3%), 7.4% [95% CI 0.2%-22.9%], and 19.2% [95% CI 5-39.6%] for the three groups, respectively. The rates of septic complications were 4% [95% CI 2.2%-6.2%], 1.9% [95% CI 0.4%-4.3%], and 4.2% [95% CI 0.9%-9.8%], respectively. Cumulative overall surgical recurrence rates were 27.5% [95% CI 18.5%-37.6%], 13.2% [95% CI 8.6%-18.7%], and 18.1% [95% CI 6.8%-33.3%]; and SXP site-specific surgical recurrence rates were 13.2% [95% CI 6.9%-21.2%], 8.3% [95% CI 1.6-19.3%], and 8.8% [95% CI 2.2%-19%], respectively. Formal comparison between the groups revealed no differences. CONCLUSIONS: Non-conventional SXP did not differ from conventional SXP with respect to safety and long-term recurrence. Consistent heterogeneity was observed and partially limits the conclusions of this study.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".