Risk factors and pooled incidence of intestinal stoma complications: systematic review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The present systematic review aimed to identify, critically assess and summarize which risk factors might determine the onset of ostomy complications, describing a pooled incidence and stratified incidences by each identified risk factor.Methods A systematic literature review with a meta-analysis of observational studies was performed by following the PRISMA statement and flow chart. The quality assessment of the included articles was performed through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).Results Sixteen articles published between 1990 and 2018 focused on the risk factors related to intestinal stomal complications, and the performed analysis led to identifying influenceable and non-influenceable risk factors. The median of the NOS evaluation was 6 (IQR = 5.75–6). Among 10,520 included patients, the pooled incidence of stomal complications was 35%, ranging from 9% to 63%, regardless of the nature of the complications. Analysis of the sub-groups highlighted obesity and ostomy surgery performed via laparoscopy or emergency conditions have significant incidences, respectively, of 66% and 68%.Conclusions The pooled incidence of stomal complications requires greater attention for its relevant epidemiology. From the clinical point of view, patients with obesity and chronic conditions require more attention to prevent complications, possibly employing accurate educational interventions to enhance proper stoma management.
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 | 0.018 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".