Non-Surgical Management of Malignant Bowel Obstruction in Advanced Ovarian Cancer patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Malignant bowel obstruction is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Many patients aren't suitable for, or decline, surgical decompression. The outcomes for this frail group of patients are not well characterized. AIM: To evaluate survival outcomes of ovarian cancer patients who undergo non-surgical management of malignant bowel obstruction. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Online literature search of Pubmed, Embase and Medline libraries up until December 2020. Searching abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacting experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies that investigated non-surgical management of confirmed bowel obstruction in advanced ovarian cancer patients were included. All levels of evidence including RCTs, cohort studies and case-series if they included greater than 5 patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The studies were independently chosen by two reviewers who extracted and analyzed the data separately through OpenMeta Analyst software. Study quality was assessed using the JADAD score and the Newcastle Ottawa Score. RESULTS: = 0%, P = 0.128). CONCLUSION: The quality of studies was relatively low, however the evidence shows that non-surgical management of bowel obstruction results in a short life expectancy but with controlled symptoms. Where quality of life is the main concern, this may be a feasible and effective strategy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".