Characteristics of Interventional Trials for Patients Living With Intestinal Stoma Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov With a Focus on Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This systematic review was performed to characterize the landscape of research conducted in patients with intestinal stoma (IS) and highlight unmet needs for clinical research in Crohn's disease (CD) and IS. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to May 25, 2022, to identify clinical trials assessing interventions in patients with an IS, as well as those with an IS and CD. Studies were grouped according to type of intervention. We excluded observational studies with no treatment arm. RESULTS: A total of 253 studies were included in the final analysis. Most studies investigated devices (n = 122 [48.2%]), or surgical procedures (n = 63 [24.9%]), followed by behavioral interventions (n = 30 [11.8%]), drugs (n = 20 [7.9%]), dietary interventions (n = 2 [0.8%]), skin care products (n = 2 0.8%]), and others (n = 14 [5.5%]). A total of 50.9% (n = 129) of studies had completed recruitment, enrolling 11 116 participants. Only 6 studies (surgery: n = 3; physiological studies: n = 2; drugs: n = 1) exclusively included patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and 16 studies commented that patients with IBD were excluded in their eligibility criteria. No study assessed efficacy of drugs in patients with CD and IS. Approximately one-quarter of studies (n = 65 of 253) included quality of life as an outcome measure. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of research in IBD patients with IS, with the majority focusing on devices and surgical procedures. There have been no drug trials evaluating efficacy in patients with CD and IS. There is an urgent need to identify barriers to enrollment and develop eligibility and outcome measures that enable the inclusion of patients with CD with stoma into clinical trials.
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 | 0.038 | 0.158 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".