MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406430236 · doi:10.17235/reed.2025.10620/2024

Appendectomy and the Risk of Microscopic Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4406430236 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hong Tang, A. Jin

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMicroscopic Colitis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: microscopic colitis (MC), a chronic intestinal inflammatory disorder characterised by persistent watery diarrhoea, is categorised into collagenous and lymphocytic subtypes. Recent studies suggest that appendectomy influences the risk of MC, although the evidence remains inconclusive. This meta-analysis of available research was conducted to clarify the relationship between appendectomy and MC risk. METHODS: in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted in the Web of Science, EMBASE, and PubMed up to January 2024, focusing on studies that explored the association between appendectomy and MC. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, with data synthesis using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. Heterogeneity and potential biases were evaluated; subgroup analyses were performed to investigate specific associations. RESULTS: six studies were analysed, including one cohort and five case-control studies involving 85,845 participants. The combined analysis showed no significant link between appendectomy and MC risk (OR: 1.20, 95 % CI: 0.91-1.58), despite moderate heterogeneity (I² = 59 %). Subgroup analyses indicated potential associations in specific contexts. Notably, significant associations were found in subgroups based on MC subtypes (CC: OR 1.59, 95 % CI: 1.20-2.10; LC: OR 1.45, 95 % CI: 1.34-1.58), unadjusted ORs (OR 1.42, 95 % CI: 1.17-1.73), healthy control groups (OR 1.51, 95 % CI: 1.38-1.67) and studies using medical records for appendectomy history (OR 1.50, 95 % CI: 1.28-1.75). Other subgroup analyses did not yield significant results. CONCLUSION: this meta-analysis did not support a significant association between appendectomy and increased risk of MC. These findings highlight the need for further large-scale, prospective studies to explore this relationship in greater detail, considering the potential for nuanced interactions and the impacts of various confounding factors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.041
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Española de Enfermedades DigestivasSame topicMicroscopic ColitisFrench-language works237,207