The Effect of Hyperosmolar Water-Soluble Contrast for the Management of Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To better understand the efficacy of water-soluble contrast (WSC) in the treatment of adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO). BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend using WSC to treat adhesive SBO nonoperatively by acting as a cathartic agent. The evidence supporting this practice is mixed. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published articles describing the effect of WSC compared with control treatments was performed for the period of January 1, 1990 to November 1, 2021. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias and the Newcastle-Ottawa tools. The therapeutic effect of WSC was assessed by operative rates and hospital length of stay (HLOS) in nonsurgical patients. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 4879 articles, of which, 28 were selected for full text review. We identified 11 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which included 817 patients and 9 observational studies of 3944 patients. HLOS in nonsurgical patients decreased by 1.95 days (95% confidence interval: 0.56-3.3) in the RCTs and could not be assessed in the observational studies. WSC did not significantly affect operative rates in the RCTs (19.8% vs. 21.4%) but did reduce rates in the observational studies (11% vs. 16%, risk ratio: 0.56, 95% confidence interval: 0.39-0.82). CONCLUSION: WSC studies may reduce HLOS for patients who have SBO and do not require surgery. However, the current literature is heterogenous with considerable design limitations. High-quality RCTs are needed using standardized protocols to determine the full benefit of WSC for the management of SBO.
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 | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".