Segmental colectomy versus total proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Total proctocolectomy (TPC) is the standard of care for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and dysplasia not amenable to endoscopic management. However, the risks of an extensive resection may outweigh the benefits in high‐risk surgical patients. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to assess postoperative outcomes between segmental colectomy (SEG) versus TPC in patients with UC. Study design Global databases were searched from inception until August 2022 for comparative studies reporting the postoperative outcomes of patients with UC undergoing SEG versus TPC. The primary outcomes were subsequent neoplasia development and overall survival. Odds ratios (ORs), hazard ratios (HRs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) were used for quality‐of‐evidence assessment. Results Eight retrospective studies comprising 4856 patients were included. Overall, 1620 (33%) patients underwent SEG. SEG patients were older, had more comorbidities and mostly underwent right colectomy (40%) and sigmoidectomy (16%). Most studies included UC patients and concomitant colorectal cancer. Reoperation and Clavien–Dindo III–IV odds were equivalent (OR 3.17; 95% CI 0.12, 81.25; I 2 66%; OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.48, 1.31; I 2 74%). There was no difference in neoplasia development (OR 5.05, 95% CI 0.37, 68.66; I 2 61%) nor in overall survival (HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.73, 1.97; I 2 61%). The risk of bias was high in all included studies and the quality of evidence was low. Conclusion Low‐quality evidence failed to demonstrate any discernible differences in the postoperative outcomes between SEG and TPC. However, given the limited granularity of the analysed data and the high likelihood of imprecise results, we cannot assert that SEG and TPC are equivalent. Furthermore, there was a suggestion of an elevated risk of neoplasia development and inferior overall survival in the SEG group.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it