META-ANALYSIS OF FIBRIN GLUE VERSUS SURGERY TREATMENT OF FISTULA-IN-ANO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the convenience in terms of recurrence and fecal incontinence rates of fibrin glue versus surgical treatment in the management of fistula-in-ano. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (CCTs) comparing conventional surgical treatment versus fibrin glue treatment in patients with perianal fistulae were identified using a predefined search strategy. The post treatment anal incontinence rate and the fistula recurrence rates between the two operations were compared by using the methods provided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The lack of homogeneity of results between the different studies did not allow to analyze other secondary outcomes. Patients with cryptoglandular and Crohn's anal fistula were enrolled in the analysis. The employed fibrin glue came from commercial kits: Beriplast (Aventis Behring, Sussex, United Kingdom) and Tisseal or Tissucol (Baxter, Inc, Mississauga, Ontario). Surgical conventional treatment consisted of fistulotomy, placement of a cutting or loose latex seton and advancement mucosal flap closure. All patients were followed up at 6 and 12 weeks, the longest follow up was 6 months. Two RCTs (106 patients) and 1 non randomized studies (232 patients) were identified. The recurrence rate is higher, although still not statistically significant, in those patients who underwent fibrin glue injection (44/81) versus conventional surgical treatment (108/230), (OR: 0.44; 95 %CI: 0.12-1.68; P = 0.23). Furthermore in the analysis of the subgroup of RCTs alone there were not significant differences with the previous results of RCTs with CCT analysis (OR: 0.33; 95 %CI: 0.03-3.66; P = 0.37). In the same way the analysis of the subgroup of RCTs with complex anal fistulae were not statistically significant and similar to the previous results regarding all type of fistulas (OR: 0.86; 95 %CI: 0.01-72.36; P = 0.95). The analysis of post-operative anal incontinence showed no difference between the group who underwent fibrin glue injection (9/230) and the conventional surgical treatment group (10/81), (OR: 1.00; 95 %CI: 0.43-2.34; P = 1.00). A very low heterogeneity in the analysis was detected (Chi-square = 0.04 - P = 0%). Our statistical analysis does not show any significant statistical difference between fibrin glue treatment versus conventional surgical treatment for all perianal fistulae in terms of recurrence (P = 0.23) and anal incontinence (P = 1.00).
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 | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.055 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".