MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

S687 Efficacy of Endoscopic Treatment in Patients With Rectal Dieulafoy's Lesion: A Systematic Review

2021· review· en· W3210305809 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Muhammad Adnan Zaman, Arslan Afzal, Muhammad Umair Khan, Faisal Inayat, Gul Nawaz, Zahid Ijaz Tarar, Nadeem Hussain, Muhammad Hassan Naeem Goraya, Junaid Rasul Awan, Zahra Akhtar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRectumColonoscopyHematocheziaMEDLINEInternal medicineEndoscopySurgeryGeneral surgeryColorectal cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Dieulafoy’s lesion (DL) is an abnormally large, tortuous, submucosal vessel that erodes the overlying mucosa, without primary ulceration or erosion. Currently, up to 2% of these lesions are detected in the rectum. To our research, this is the first systematic review aiming to investigate the efficacy of endoscopic therapy in patients with rectal DL. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, and Google Scholar databases was conducted for articles published between inception and June 20, 2021. The search terminologies included “Dieulafoy’s lesion,” “rectum,” “rectal DL,” “endoscopic treatment,” and “outcomes.” We also screened reference lists of search results and reviewed abstracts from major gastroenterology scientific meetings. Two authors meticulously reviewed all retrieved papers for patient data. The final inclusion criteria consisted of articles describing cases of rectal DL, with sufficient patient data available. Two authors independently reviewed each article for eligibility. The initial search yielded a total of 389 results. After exclusion, the final analysis included 84 studies. Results: A total of 113 case reports only (clinical evidence level: IV) met the inclusion criteria. The mean age of presentation was 67±14 years (range, 18–96 years), with 57% of cases reported in males. Major presentations included bright-red blood per rectum 48% and hematochezia 34%. Hypertension 33%, diabetes mellitus 23%, and chronic kidney disease 15% were among the common comorbidities. The average number of colonoscopies required for the diagnosis was 1.4±0.9. Endoscopic therapy was applied in 83% of patients, with a primary hemostasis rate of 88.17%. Endoscopic hemoclipping alone or in combination with epinephrine was among the preferred therapeutic techniques (Table 1). The overall mortality rate was 5.7%. Conclusion: Endoscopic therapy is safe and effective in rectal DL and can be considered the reference standard treatment. Patients can have a favorable clinical outcome if endoscopic therapy is applied early. Updated knowledge of the lesion and its clinical presentations can help early detection, leading to timely improvisation of endoscopic management, ultimately improving clinical outcomes. The long-term prognosis is excellent in patients treated with endoscopic methods. Future research should undertake stratification of the efficacy of commonly used endoscopic techniques to determine an optimal approach.Table 1.: Study Methodology Quality Assessment on Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.007
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.293 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207