Frequency, outcomes, and need for intervention in stricturing gastrointestinal tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gastrointestinal strictures impact clinical presentation in abdominal tuberculosis and are associated with significant morbidity.To conduct a systematic review of the prevalence of stricturing disease in abdominal and gastrointestinal tuberculosis and response to antitubercular therapy (ATT).We searched Pubmed and Embase on 13th January 2022, for papers reporting on the frequency and outcomes of stricturing gastrointestinal tuberculosis. The data were extracted, and pooled prevalence of stricturing disease was estimated in abdominal tuberculosis and gastrointestinal (intestinal) tuberculosis. The pooled clinical response and stricture resolution (endoscopic or radiologic) rates were also estimated. Publication bias was assessed using the Funnel plot and Egger test. The risk of bias assessment was done using a modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale.Thirty-three studies reporting about 1969 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of intestinal strictures in abdominal tuberculosis and gastrointestinal TB was 0.12 (95%CI 0.07-0.20, I2 = 89%) and 0.27 (95% CI 0.21-0.33, I2 = 85%), respectively. The pooled clinical response of stricturing gastrointestinal tuberculosis to antitubercular therapy was 0.77 (95%CI 0.65-0.86, I2 = 74%). The pooled stricture response rate (endoscopic or radiological) was 0.66 (95%CI 0.40-0.85, I2 = 91%). The pooled rate of need for surgical intervention was 0.21 (95%CI 0.13-0.32, I2 = 70%), while endoscopic dilatation was 0.14 (95%CI 0.09-0.21, I2 = 0%).Stricturing gastrointestinal tuberculosis occurs in around a quarter of patients with gastrointestinal tuberculosis, and around two-thirds of patients have a clinical response with antitubercular therapy. A subset of patients may need endoscopic or surgical intervention. The estimates for the pooled prevalence of stricturing disease and response to ATT had significant heterogeneity.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".