The impact of intestinal stoma formation on patient quality of life after emergency surgery—A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Elective stoma formation has a negative effect on patient quality of life (QoL), with a potential detrimental impact on body image, confidence and social functioning being shown previously. However, the impact of emergency stoma formation on QoL has been explored less frequently. This systematic review aims to synthesize all available literature exploring QoL via patient-reported outcome measures. METHODS: A search strategy was implemented on 24 November 2022 across Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo and the Cochrane Library database after registration on PROSPERO (CRD42022370606). Studies were included if they used a standardized patient-reported outcome measure, had more than five emergency stoma patients, age > 18 years and were fully published in English. Two of three independent researchers screened articles, extracted data and performed quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: In all, 1775 articles were screened, with 16 included in the systematic review. This included 1868 emergency stoma patients (men:women 0.53; median age 64.6 years) followed up for a median of 12 months. Patients who had a Hartmann's procedure for perforated diverticulitis had poorer QoL than those who underwent primary anastomosis. There was a negligible difference in QoL between those who had a colonic stent for obstructing colorectal cancer compared with those who underwent emergency stoma formation. Female sex, end stoma formation and ileostomy formation were all identified as risk factors for poorer QoL. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing emergency stoma surgery have marginally poorer QoL compared with those undergoing similar procedures without stoma formation. Further work is required to identify risk factors associated with this and also to compare QoL after stoma reversal.
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 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".