Nutrição entérica pré-operatória e resultados pós-operatórios em adultos com doença de Crohn: revisão sistemática
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aim: Enteral nutrition (EN) is applicable to adult Crohn's disease (CD) in treating malnutrition and in inducing remission - here as a less effective alternative than corticosteroids. The purpose of this review is to determine whether preoperative EN impacts postoperative complications of adult CD, either by means of nutritional or therapeutic effects. Summary: A systematic review of English written full-text research articles published between January 1990 and November 2017, including adult patients undergoing abdominal surgery for complicated CD after EN, was performed. Four studies out of 22 were selected, all of which institutional, retrospective, case-control cohorts, one classified as "good quality" and three as "poor quality," as rated by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The application of inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in a non-intentional absence of studies referring to supplemental EN among those reviewed. The reduced number of heterogeneous eligible studies impeded meta-analysis. In all studies, exclusive EN (EEN) was used and well tolerated, allowing to defer or even avoid surgery altogether, improving patients' global state. The two studies with the greatest number of patients found preoperative EEN to be an independent factor against infectious and non-infectious complications in 219 patients and against anastomotic leaks or abscesses in 38 patients. Also, in univariate analysis, EEN was found to increase preop-erative immunosuppressant-free intervals and to protect against anastomotic dehiscences, intra-abdominal abscesses, surgical wound infections, ileus, stomas, and reoperations in the largest study; in another study it was related to fewer intra-abdominal septic complications. Key messages: All reviewed studies are retrospective and, consequently, of limited relevance. Nonetheless, all of them call the attention of the scientific community to the potential benefits of preoperative EEN on postoperative outcomes in adult CD, calling for prospective multi-institutional studies and randomized controlled trials.
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 | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".