Management of complications in patients with an ileostomy: an umbrella review of systematic reviews for the EndOTrial Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Standardized clinical care processes for patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and a permanent ileostomy (PI) are lacking. The EndOTrial consortium aims to address this gap by developing pathways for care. METHODS: In this umbrella review, we searched major databases for relevant systematic reviews (SRs) or scoping reviews (ScR) published until January 5, 2024. Screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal (AMSTAR 2) were performed by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Of 1349 screened papers, 22 reviews met our inclusion criteria, including 20 SRs (eight with meta-analysis) and 2 ScRs. None exclusively focused on PI. Furthermore, nine reviews did not mention patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and only two reviews included patients with high-output ileostomy, highlighting a large evidence gap. The identified reviews covered six categories with nine types of interventions, including ostomy care pathways, peristomal skin care, patient education, clinical management of high-output stoma, management and prevention of postoperative ileus, dietary and nutritional support, nursing and supporting care, telemedicine, and self-management interventions. Most SRs including nursing interventions for stoma care highlighted nurses' role in a variety of standard and specialized treatments. Notably, none of the reviews exclusively examined disease recurrence, stoma pouching systems or adhesives, behavioral interventions, or mental health in patients living with ileostomy. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for best practice interventions to treat complications and improve quality of life in patients living with an ileostomy for CD is limited and heterogeneous. These results outline the need for standardized clinical care processes and pathways tailored to the unique needs of this patient population.
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 | 0.049 | 0.157 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".