Systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials: Medical therapies for the treatment and prevention of pouchitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We conducted a systematic review to assess medical therapy for the treatment and prevention of pouchitis. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of medical therapy in adults with or without pouchitis were searched to March 2022. Primary outcomes included clinical remission/response, maintenance of remission and prevention of pouchitis. RESULTS: Twenty RCTs (N = 830) were included. Acute pouchitis: One study compared ciprofloxacin with metronidazole. At 2 weeks, 100% (7/7) of ciprofloxacin participants achieved remission, compared with 67% (6/9) of metronidazole participants (RR: 1.44, 95% CI: 0.88-2.35, very low certainty evidence). One study compared budesonide enemas with oral metronidazole. Fifty percent (6/12) of budesonide participants achieved remission compared with 43% (6/14) of metronidazole participants (RR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.51-2.67, low certainty evidence). Chronic pouchitis: Two studies (n = 76) assessed De Simone Formulation. Eighty-five percent (34/40) of De Simone Formulation participants maintained remission at 9-12 months compared with 3% (1/36) placebo participants (RR: 18.50, 95% CI: 3.86-88.56, moderate certainty evidence). One study assessed vedolizumab. Thirty-one percent (16/51) of vedolizumab participants achieved clinical remission at 14 weeks compared with 10% (5/51) of placebo participants (RR: 3.20, 95% CI: 1.27-8.08, moderate certainty evidence). PROPHYLAXIS: Two studies assessed De Simone Formulation. Ninety percent (18/20) of De Simone Formulation participants did not develop pouchitis compared with 60% (12/20) of placebo participants (RR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.02-2.21, moderate certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Apart from vedolizumab and the De Simone formulation, the effects of other medical interventions for pouchitis are uncertain.
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 | 0.029 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.028 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".