ArticleColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland2024
Classification and stratification in pilonidal sinus disease: findings from the PITSTOP cohort.
Article in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- An algorithmic proposal for the treatment of pilonidal disease based on outcomes over a 30 year period.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Early postoperative outcomes of sinus laser closure versus crystallized phenol treatment for pilonidal sinus disease: a retrospective comparative study.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Treatment Outcomes of Presacral Pilonidal Sinus Disease Using Crystallised Phenol: A Single-Centre Clinical Series.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Phenol for pilonidal sinus disease: a nationwide survey of practice patterns and safety gaps among surgeons in Türkiye.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- The Efficacy of Punch Biopsy and Diode Laser Combination in the Treatment of Pilonidal Sinus: A Comparative Study Across Different Patient Groups.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The validation of a simple and instrument-free technique to measure the depth of the natal cleft (a cohort study).Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025Article
- Decision regret following surgical management of pilonidal disease.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024Article
- Research and practice priorities in pilonidal sinus disease: a consensus from the PITSTOP study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024Article
- Classification and stratification in pilonidal sinus disease: findings from the PITSTOP cohort.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimResearch in pilonidal disease faces several challenges, one of which is consistent and useful disease classification. The International Pilonidal Society (IPS) proposed a four-part classification in 2017. The aim of this work was to assess the validity and reliability of this tool using data from the PITSTOP cohort study.
methodFace validity was assessed by mapping the items/domains in the IPS tool against tools identified through a systematic review. Key concepts were defined as those appearing in more than two-thirds of published tools. Concurrent and predictive validity were assessed by comparing key patient-reported outcome measures between groups at baseline and at clinic visit. The outcomes of interest were health utility, Cardiff Wound Impact Questionnaire (CWIQ) and pain score between groups. Significance was set at p = 0.05 a priori. Interrater reliability was assessed using images captured during the PITSTOP cohort. Ninety images were assessed by six raters (two experts, two general surgeons and two trainees), and classified into IPS type. Interrater reliability was assessed using the unweighted kappa and unweighted Gwet's AC1 statistics.
resultsFor face validity items represented in the IPS were common to other classification systems. Concurrent and predictive validity assessment showed differences in health utility and pain between groups at baseline, and for some treatment groups at follow-up. Assessors agreed the same classification in 38% of participants [chance-corrected kappa 0.52 (95% CI 0.42-0.61), Gwet's AC1 0.63 (95% CI 0.56-0.69)].
conclusionThe IPS classification demonstrates key aspects of reliability and validity that would support its implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.