Algorithmic approaches to ostomy management: An integrative review.

Only four studies were included, and they were validation, survey, prospective evaluation or quality-improvement studies rather than high-level trials. The search used only CINAHL and MEDLINE and English-language papers, so relevant studies may have been missed. The only validated algorithm was not fully published, so its management recommendations cannot be checked. Two included validation studies were industry funded, and the authors had employment, speaker honoraria, research grants or advisory relationships with an ostomy company. Implementation outcomes were reported together with education or system rollout, so the separate effect of the algorithm cannot be identified. Quality appraisal scores were good on average, but ethics and bias scored lowest. Manufacturer-specific algorithms were not captured by the search and were discussed separately.

The review authors declared no conflicts of interest. The included evidence was different: the only validated algorithm was studied in two industry-funded papers, with ostomy-company employment, speaker honoraria, research grants or advisory roles reported, and editorial support for the first validation study. A Coloplast-funded article was also used to discuss a manufacturer tool.

Do not read this as proof that ostomy algorithms improve patient care. The review found only one validated algorithm, its full management recommendations were not published, and reported benefits came from validation or quality-improvement studies, not high-level trials.