Risk of Surgery for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Has Decreased Over Time: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Population-Based Studies
TL;DR: The risk of intestinal surgery among patients with IBD has decreased over the past 6 decades, and the trend in risk of surgery over time was analyzed by meta-regression using mixed-effect models.
About: This article is published in Gastroenterology.The article was published on 2013-11-01. It has received 623 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Inflammatory bowel disease & Population.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The goal of this article is to establish the current epidemiology of IBD in the Western world, contrast it with the increase in IBD on health-care systems in newly industrialized countries and forecast the global effects of I BD in 2025.
Abstract: Over 1 million residents in the USA and 2.5 million in Europe are estimated to have IBD, with substantial costs for health care. These estimates do not factor in the 'real' price of IBD, which can impede career aspirations, instil social stigma and impair quality of life in patients. The majority of patients are diagnosed early in life and the incidence continues to rise; therefore, the effect of IBD on health-care systems will rise exponentially. Moreover, IBD has emerged in newly industrialized countries in Asia, South America and Middle East and has evolved into a global disease with rising prevalence in every continent. Understanding the worldwide epidemiological patterns of IBD will prepare us to manage the burden of IBD over time. The goal of this article is to establish the current epidemiology of IBD in the Western world, contrast it with the increase in IBD in newly industrialized countries and forecast the global effects of IBD in 2025.
1,488 citations
University of California, San Diego1, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai2, McMaster University3, Medical University of Vienna4, University of Amsterdam5, John Radcliffe Hospital6, Tel Aviv University7, University of Western Ontario8, University of Otago9, Columbia University10, Semmelweis University11, Mayo Clinic12, University of Copenhagen13, University of Toronto14, University of Calgary15, Université de Sherbrooke16, University of Chicago17, Dartmouth College18, University of Kiel19, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven20, University of Rennes21, Lille University of Science and Technology22, Northwestern University23
TL;DR: Evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for selecting the goals for treat-to-target strategies in patients with IBD are made available and future studies are needed to determine how these targets will change disease course and patients’ quality of life.
1,329 citations
Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust1, Newcastle University2, University of Exeter3, University of Cambridge4, Imperial College London5, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust6, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital NHS Trust7, University of Manchester8, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust9, King's College London10, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust11, Barts Health NHS Trust12, Queen Mary University of London13, University of Leeds14, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust15, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland16, University of Edinburgh17, Western General Hospital18, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust19, Glasgow Royal Infirmary20, University of Glasgow21, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham22, University of Birmingham23, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust24, University College London25, Brighton and Sussex Medical School26, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust27, University of Wolverhampton28, University Hospital of Wales29
TL;DR: Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided regarding indications for, initiation and monitoring of immunosuppressive therapies, nutrition interventions, pre-, peri- and postoperative management, as well as structure and function of the multidisciplinary team and integration between primary and secondary care.
Abstract: Ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease are the principal forms of inflammatory bowel disease. Both represent chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, which displays heterogeneity in inflammatory and symptomatic burden between patients and within individuals over time. Optimal management relies on understanding and tailoring evidence-based interventions by clinicians in partnership with patients. This guideline for management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults over 16 years of age was developed by Stakeholders representing UK physicians (British Society of Gastroenterology), surgeons (Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland), specialist nurses (Royal College of Nursing), paediatricians (British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition), dietitians (British Dietetic Association), radiologists (British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology), general practitioners (Primary Care Society for Gastroenterology) and patients (Crohn’s and Colitis UK). A systematic review of 88 247 publications and a Delphi consensus process involving 81 multidisciplinary clinicians and patients was undertaken to develop 168 evidence- and expert opinion-based recommendations for pharmacological, non-pharmacological and surgical interventions, as well as optimal service delivery in the management of both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided regarding indications for, initiation and monitoring of immunosuppressive therapies, nutrition interventions, pre-, peri- and postoperative management, as well as structure and function of the multidisciplinary team and integration between primary and secondary care. Twenty research priorities to inform future clinical management are presented, alongside objective measurement of priority importance, determined by 2379 electronic survey responses from individuals living with ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, including patients, their families and friends.
1,140 citations
TL;DR: This guideline is intended to be flexible, not necessarily indicating the only acceptable approach, and should be distinguished from standards of care that are inflexible and rarely violated.
755 citations
Humanitas University1, University College Dublin2, Autonomous University of Madrid3, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust4, Winterthur Museum, Garden and Library5, University of Basel6, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart7, Aarhus University Hospital8, University of Copenhagen9, Royal Liverpool University Hospital10, Aalborg University11, Mater Dei Hospital12, University of Bologna13, Barts Health NHS Trust14, Comenius University in Bratislava15, Sheba Medical Center16, University of Porto17, McMaster University18, Linköping University19, Seconda Università degli Studi di Napoli20, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven21, University of Padua22, Maastricht University Medical Centre23, Beaujon Hospital24, University of Zurich25, Imperial College London26
TL;DR: The present article addresses surgical management, including preoperative aspects and drug management before surgery, and provides technical advice for a variety of common clinical situations.
Abstract: This article is the second in a series of two publications relating to the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] evidence-based consensus on the management of Crohn's disease. The first article covers medical management; the present article addresses surgical management, including preoperative aspects and drug management before surgery. It also provides technical advice for a variety of common clinical situations. Both articles together represent the evidence-based recommendations of the ECCO for Crohn's disease and an update of previous guidelines.
563 citations
References
More filters
Journal Article•
TL;DR: Copyright (©) 1999–2012 R Foundation for Statistical Computing; permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this manual provided the copyright notice and permission notice are preserved on all copies.
Abstract: Copyright (©) 1999–2012 R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this manual provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all copies. Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a permission notice identical to this one. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this manual into another language, under the above conditions for modified versions, except that this permission notice may be stated in a translation approved by the R Core Team.
272,030 citations
TL;DR: A new quantity is developed, I 2, which the authors believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis, which is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta- analysis.
Abstract: Cochrane Reviews have recently started including the quantity I 2 to help readers assess the consistency of the results of studies in meta-analyses. What does this new quantity mean, and why is assessment of heterogeneity so important to clinical practice?
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide convincing and reliable evidence relevant to many aspects of medicine and health care.1 Their value is especially clear when the results of the studies they include show clinically important effects of similar magnitude. However, the conclusions are less clear when the included studies have differing results. In an attempt to establish whether studies are consistent, reports of meta-analyses commonly present a statistical test of heterogeneity. The test seeks to determine whether there are genuine differences underlying the results of the studies (heterogeneity), or whether the variation in findings is compatible with chance alone (homogeneity). However, the test is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta-analysis. We have developed a new quantity, I 2, which we believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis.
Assessment of the consistency of effects across studies is an essential part of meta-analysis. Unless we know how consistent the results of studies are, we cannot determine the generalisability of the findings of the meta-analysis. Indeed, several hierarchical systems for grading evidence state that the results of studies must be consistent or homogeneous to obtain the highest grading.2–4
Tests for heterogeneity are commonly used to decide on methods for combining studies and for concluding consistency or inconsistency of findings.5 6 But what does the test achieve in practice, and how should the resulting P values be interpreted?
A test for heterogeneity examines the null hypothesis that all studies are evaluating the same effect. The usual test statistic …
45,105 citations
"Risk of Surgery for Inflammatory Bo..." refers methods in this paper
...We assessed for heterogeneity between studies using CochranQ statistic and the I(2) statistic.(20,21) Due to the presence of heterogeneity, a random effects model was used....
[...]
TL;DR: It is concluded that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity, and one or both should be presented in publishedMeta-an analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity.
Abstract: The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity.
25,460 citations
TL;DR: A checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion should improve the usefulness ofMeta-an analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers.
Abstract: ObjectiveBecause of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health
and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature,
research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used
to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A
workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting
of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid
authors, reviewers, editors, and readers.ParticipantsTwenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based
on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social
sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open
to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.EvidenceWe conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the
conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE,
Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index
to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved
and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group
discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity,
study categorization, and statistical methods.Consensus ProcessFrom the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a
checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational
studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference
attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed.ConclusionsThe proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses
of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy,
methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should
improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers,
and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are
explored.
17,663 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, an adjusted rank correlation test is proposed as a technique for identifying publication bias in a meta-analysis, and its operating characteristics are evaluated via simulations, and the test statistic is a direct statistical analogue of the popular funnel-graph.
Abstract: An adjusted rank correlation test is proposed as a technique for identifying publication bias in a meta-analysis, and its operating characteristics are evaluated via simulations. The test statistic is a direct statistical analogue of the popular "funnel-graph." The number of component studies in the meta-analysis, the nature of the selection mechanism, the range of variances of the effect size estimates, and the true underlying effect size are all observed to be influential in determining the power of the test. The test is fairly powerful for large meta-analyses with 75 component studies, but has only moderate power for meta-analyses with 25 component studies. However, in many of the configurations in which there is low power, there is also relatively little bias in the summary effect size estimate. Nonetheless, the test must be interpreted with caution in small meta-analyses. In particular, bias cannot be ruled out if the test is not significant. The proposed technique has potential utility as an exploratory tool for meta-analysts, as a formal procedure to complement the funnel-graph.
13,373 citations