How Reliable Is Endoscopic Scoring of Postoperative Recurrence in Crohn Disease?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Guidelines advise to perform endoscopic surveillance following ileocolic resection (ICR) in Crohn disease (CD) for timely diagnosis of recurrence. This study aims to assess the variation in endoscopic recurrence (ER) rates in patients after ICR for CD using the most commonly used classification systems, the Rutgeerts score (RS) and modified Rutgeerts score (mRS) classifications. Methods: A systematic literature search using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies describing ER < 12 months after an ICR for CD were included. Animal studies, reviews, case reports (<30 included patients), pediatric studies, and letters were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and Cochrane Collaboration's tool were used to assess risk of bias. Main outcome was the range of ER rates within 12 months postoperatively, defined as RS ≥ i2 and/or mRS ≥ i2b. A proportional meta-analysis was performed. The final search was performed on January 4, 2022. The study was registered at PROSPERO, CRD42022363208. Results: Seventy-six studies comprising 7751 patients were included. The weighted mean of ER rates in all included studies was 44.0% (95% confidence interval, 43.56-44.43). The overall range was 5.0% to 93.0% [interquartile range (IQR), 29.2-59.0]. The weighted means for RS and mRS were 44.0% and 41.1%, respectively. The variation in ER rates for RS and mRS were 5.0% to 93.0% (IQR, 29.0-59.5) and 19.8% to 62.9% (IQR, 37.3-46.5), respectively. Within studies reporting both RS and mRS, the weighted means for ER were 61.3% and 40.6%, respectively. Conclusions: This study demonstrates a major variation in ER rates after ICR for CD, suggesting a high likelihood of inadequate diagnosis of disease recurrence, with potentially impact on quality of life and health care consumption. Therefore, there is an important need to improve endoscopic scoring of recurrent disease.
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 | 0.042 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.030 | 0.058 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".