Can text-search methods of pathology reports accurately identify patients with rectal cancer in large administrative databases?

Background: The aim of this study is to derive and to validate a cohort of rectal cancer surgical patients within administrative datasets using text-search analysis of pathology reports. Materials and Methods: A text-search algorithm was developed and validated on pathology reports from 694 known rectal cancers, 1000 known colon cancers, and 1000 noncolorectal specimens. The algorithm was applied to all pathology reports available within the Ottawa Hospital Data Warehouse from 1996 to 2010. Identified pathology reports were validated as rectal cancer specimens through manual chart review. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of the text-search methodology were calculated. Results: In the derivation cohort of pathology reports (n = 2694), the text-search algorithm had a sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 98.6%, respectively. When this algorithm was applied to all pathology reports from 1996 to 2010 (n = 284,032), 5588 pathology reports were identified as consistent with rectal cancer. Medical record review determined that 4550 patients did not have rectal cancer, leaving a final cohort of 1038 rectal cancer patients. Sensitivity and specificity of the text-search algorithm were 100% and 98.4%, respectively. PPV of the algorithm was 18.6%. Conclusions: Text-search methodology is a feasible way to identify all rectal cancer surgery patients through administrative datasets with high sensitivity and specificity. However, in the presence of a low pretest probability, text-search methods must be combined with a validation method, such as manual chart review, to be a viable approach

Comparison of BioLIFT versus LIFT for the treatment of trans-sphincteric anal fistula: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction Identifying the optimal treatment for anal fistula has been challenging. Since first reported in 2007, the ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) procedure has reported healing rates between 40% and 95% and is being increasingly adopted. The BioLIFT is an augmentation of the LIFT with an intersphincteric bioprosthetic mesh and has reported healing rates between 69% and 94%. Despite increased costs and potential complications associated with mesh, the evidence comparing healing rates between BioLIFT and LIFT is unknown. This study details the protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of BioLIFT and LIFT to compare outcomes associated with each procedure.Methods and analysis MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database will be searched from inception using a search strategy designed by an information specialist. Randomised controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, consecutive series, cross-sectional studies and case series with more than five patients will be included. Both comparative and single group studies will be included. The eligible population will be adult patients undergoing BioLIFT or LIFT for trans-sphincteric anal fistula. The primary outcome will be primary healing rate. Secondary outcomes will capture secondary healing rate and complications. Abstract, full text and data extraction will be completed independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. Study risk of bias will be assessed using Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions and the Risk of Bias (RoB 2.0) tool. Quality of evidence for outcomes will be evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations criteria. A meta-analysis will be performed using a random-effects inverse variance model. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be explored in relation to complex fistula characteristics and patients who have undergone previous LIFT. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I2 statistic.Ethics and dissemination This review does not require research ethics board approval. This study will be completed in September 2022. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed international conferences and journals.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020127996