Impact of antegrade enema initiation on healthcare utilization in pediatric patients: A population‐based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: When constipation is refractory to first-line interventions, antegrade enema use may be considered. We aimed to assess the impact of this intervention on healthcare utilization. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, quasi-experimental study with pre-post comparison of the intervention group and a non-equivalent control group using linked clinical and health administrative data from Ontario, Canada. Subjects included children (0-18 years) who underwent antegrade enema initiation from 2007 to 2020 and matched controls (4:1) from the general population. To assess the change in healthcare utilization following antegrade enema initiation, we used negative binomial generalized estimating equations with covariates selected a priori. KEY RESULTS: One hundred thirty-eight subjects met eligibility criteria (appendicostomy = 55 (39.9%); cecostomy tube = 83 (60.1%)) and were matched to 550 controls. There was no significant difference in the change in the rate of hospitalizations (rate ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35-1.75), outpatient visits (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91-1.18), or same-day surgical procedures (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.60-2.43) across cases in 2 years following antegrade enema initiation compared with controls. Cases had an increased rate of emergency department (ED) visits, which was not observed in controls (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.11-1.79), driven in part by device-related complications. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Understanding healthcare utilization patterns following antegrade enema initiation allows for effective health system planning and aids medical decision-making. The observed increase in ED visits for device-related complications speaks to the need to improve preventive management to help mitigate emergency care after initiation of antegrade enemas.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".