Interventions for Adjunctive Care in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Permanent Ileostomy: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The evidence for the management of patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and permanent ileostomy (PI) is limited. We aimed to summarize the interventional studies related to the provision of adjunctive ostomy care in this population. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception to January 5, 2024. Eligible studies were non-randomized or randomized controlled trials (RCTs), or comparative cohort studies predominantly recruiting participants with CD and/or ulcerative colitis (UC) with PI assessing interventions for the management of high stoma output, disease recurrence, peristomal skin care, pouching systems, behavioral interventions, mental health support, and diet. Results: = 95). Out of these, 5 adopted a crossover design, and 1 study was a double-blind parallel-group RCT. All except 1 were published more than 20 years ago (1976-2003). Two studies exclusively included patients with UC, one included CD, and the remaining included both UC and CD. Four studies assessed pharmacological interventions (loperamide, 5-aminosalysilate [5-ASA], azodisal sodium, and budesonide), one assessed oral supplement with different osmolarities, and one assessed dietary intervention (unrefined vs refined carbohydrate). A decrease in ileostomy output was the primary outcome of interest in 4 studies. None of the studies assessed interventions for peristomal skin care, quality of life, stoma pouching systems, behavioral interventions, mental health, or CD recurrence. Conclusions: This study highlights that the evidence base to inform care for patients with IBD and PI is almost non-existent. There is an urgent need for focused research in this area to inform evidence-based treatment decisions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".