Temporary Faecal Diversion for Refractory Perianal and/or Distal Colonic Crohn’s Disease in the Biologic Era: An Updated Systematic Review with Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We evaluated short- and long-term outcomes of temporary faecal diversion [FD] for management of refractory Crohn's disease [CD], focusing on outcomes in the biologic era. METHODS: Through a systematic literature review until March 15, 2023, we identified 33 studies [19 conducted in the biologic era] that evaluated 1578 patients with perianal and/or distal colonic CD who underwent temporary FD [with intent of restoring bowel continuity] and reported long-term outcomes [primary outcome: successful restoration of bowel continuity, defined as remaining ostomy-free after reconnection at a minimum of 6 months after diversion or at the end of follow-up]. We calculated pooled rates (with 95% confidence interval [CI]) using random effects meta-analysis, and examined factors associated with successful restoration of bowel continuity. RESULTS: Overall, 61% patients [95% CI, 52-68%; 50% in biologic era] experienced clinical improvement after FD. Stoma takedown was attempted in 34% patients [28-41%; 37% in biologic era], 6-18 months after diversion. Among patients where bowel restoration was attempted, 63% patients [54-71%] had successful restoration of bowel continuity, and 26% [20-34%] required re-diversion. Overall, 21% patients [17-27%; 24% in biologic era] who underwent FD were successfully restored; 34% patients [30-39%; 31% in biologic era] required proctectomy with permanent ostomy. On meta-regression, post-diversion biologic use and absence of proctitis was associated with successful bowel restoration after temporary FD in contemporary studies. CONCLUSION: In the biologic era, temporary FD for refractory perianal and/or distal colonic CD improves symptoms in half the patients, and bowel continuity can be successfully restored in a quarter of patients.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".