Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33783507›Full record

ArticleInflammatory bowel diseases2022

Natural History and Risk Stratification of Recurrent Crohn's Disease After Ileocolonic Resection: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

Vincent Joustra, Marjolijn Duijvestein, Aart Mookhoek, Willem Bemelman, Christianne Buskens, Matic Koželj, Gregor Novak, Pieter Hindryckx, Nahid Mostafavi, Geert D'Haens

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Inflammatory bowel diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. How Reliable Is Endoscopic Scoring of Postoperative Recurrence in Crohn Disease?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Vincent JoustraDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, AGEM University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4157-7220
Marjolijn DuijvesteinDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, AGEM University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Aart MookhoekDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Willem BemelmanDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Christianne BuskensDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Matic KoželjDepartment of Gastroenterology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Gregor NovakDepartment of Gastroenterology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Pieter HindryckxDepartment of Gastroenterology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Nahid MostafaviBiostatistical Unit, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Geert D'HaensDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, AGEM University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrediction of endoscopic postoperative recurrence (POR) and prophylactic treatment based on clinical risk profile have thus far been inconclusive. This study aimed to examine the association between clinical risk profile and the development of endoscopic POR in a Crohn's disease population without postoperative treatment and to identify individual risk factors of endoscopic POR.

methodsMedical records of 142 patients with Crohn's disease during follow-up after ileocecal or ileocolonic resection without prophylactic treatment at 3 referral centers were reviewed. Endoscopic POR was defined as a modified Rutgeerts score ≥i2b. Clinical risk profiles were distilled from current guidelines. Both uni- and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to assess the relationship between risk profiles and endoscopic POR.

resultsEndoscopic POR was observed in 68 out of 142 (47.9%) patients. Active smoking postsurgery (odds ratio [OR], 3.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-7.34; P = 0.02), a Montreal classification of A3 (OR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.07-8.69; P = 0.04), and previous bowel resections (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.07-6.22; P = 0.03) were significantly associated with endoscopic POR. No significant association was observed between endoscopic POR and any guideline defined as a high-/low-risk profile. However, patients with a combination of any 3 or more European Crohns & Colitis Organisation- (OR, 4.87; 95% CI, 1.30-18.29; P = 0.02) or British Society of Gastroenterology-defined (OR 3.16; 95% CI, 1.05-9.49; P = 0.04) risk factors showed increased odds of developing endoscopic POR.

conclusionsOur results suggest that patients with a combination of any 3 or more European Crohns & Colitis Organisation- or British Society of Gastroenterology-defined risk factors would probably benefit from immediate prophylactic treatment.

Indexed as

Crohn DiseaseColonoscopyHumansIleumRecurrenceRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentCrohn diseaseendoscopic recurrencenatural historyrisk stratification

Identifiers

PMID33783507
PMCPMC8730683

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.