Postcholecystectomy diarrhoea rate and predictive factors: a systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Cholecystectomy is one of the most common surgical procedures performed worldwide to treat gallstone-related disease. Postcholecystectomy diarrhoea (PCD) is a well-reported phenomenon, however, the actual rate, predictive factors and mechanism of action have not been well determined. A systematic review was undertaken to determine the rate and predictive factors associated with diarrhoea in the postcholecystectomy setting. METHODS: The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol. Databases searched included Medline, Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane and Google Scholar up to 29 September 2020. The inclusion criteria consisted of cohort studies or randomised trials which investigated the rate of PCD and predictive factors. Case reports, case series, conference abstracts and expert opinion pieces were excluded as were other systematic reviews as all the original articles from those reviews were included in this review. Papers that did not include PCD as a separate entity were excluded. Bias assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies and the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised controlled trials as appropriate. Data were extracted by two authors (AF and JAA) and an overall rate of PCD was calculated. Predictive factors were also extracted and compared between studies. RESULTS: 1204 papers were obtained and 21 were found to contain relevant information about PCD, including the number of patients developing diarrhoea, method of symptom assessment and time of onset postcholecystectomy. A pooled total of 3476 patients were included across the identified studies with 462 (13.3%) patients developing PCD. Possible predictive factors varied across all studies, with characteristics such as gender, age and weight of patients postulated as being predictive of PCD, with no agreement across studies. DISCUSSION: PCD is therefore relatively common (13.3%). This has important implications for patient consent. Patients ought to be investigated early for bile acid diarrhoea in suspected PCD. More studies are required to determine the possible predictive factors for PCD. Limitations of the study included that most studies were not powered for calculation of PCD, and assessment methods between studies varied. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019140444.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".