MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323351103 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwac036.212

A212 THE IMPACT OF COMBINED MEDICAL AND SURGICAL TREATMENT FOR PERIANAL CROHN’S DISEASE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2023· review· en· W4323351103 on OpenAlexaffabout
M Fung, Y Farbod, Husain Kankouni, Jeffrey D. McCurdy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnorectal Disease Treatments and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFistulaSurgeryCrohn's diseasePopulationMeta-analysisModality (human–computer interaction)Cochrane LibraryAnal fistulaDiseaseInternal medicineRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Multidisciplinary care involving surgical drainage via examinations under anesthesia (EUA) and anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy is recommended for perianal Crohn’s disease (PCD). However, the impact of this combined modality approach is not well-established. Purpose To determine the impact of combined modality (surgical and anti-TNF) vs. single modality (either surgical or anti-TNF) therapy on fistula healing in perianal Crohn’s disease. Method MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched systematically from inception through September 15, 2022 independently in duplicate. We included studies that reported on fistula outcomes after treatment with combined modality vs. single modality therapy for PCD. Surgery was defined as EUA ± seton or closure procedure. Weighted summary estimates with 95% CI were estimated by random effects models. Study quality was determined using an adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Result(s) Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria. The total population included 1279 patients: 685 patients treated with single modality therapy with either surgical or anti-TNF therapy and 594 patients treated with combined modality therapy. Patients treated with combined modality therapy were more likely to achieve fistula healing compared to single modality therapy (65.4% vs. 57.7%; OR 1.68; 95% CI 1.03-2.73, p = 0.04) (Figure 1a). In a subgroup analysis, the rates of fistula healing were higher with combined modality therapy than with surgical therapy alone (OR 2.34; 95% CI 0.85-6.46, p = 0.10) but not anti-TNF therapy alone (OR 1.19; 95% CI 0.78-1.81, p = 0.43), although neither comparison was statistically significant (Figures 1b and c). The majority of studies were rated low-quality due to risk of bias from uncontrolled confounding variables. Image Conclusion(s) Limited high-quality evidence suggests that fistula healing occurs more frequently in patients treated with combined modality therapy. However, the benefit of a combined modality approach appears to be driven mainly by anti-TNF therapy. Further prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below None Disclosure of Interest None Declared

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.049
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicAnorectal Disease Treatments and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207