This is the old version of SRDR. The next, SRDRplus is available! Registration of your SRDRPlus account is free and approval is automatic. Click Here to register an SRDRPlus account.

  • Home
  • Published Projects
  • Registries
Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Population-based study of outcomes following an initial acute diverticular abscess.



Key Questions Addressed
4 KEY QUESTION 4 KQ 4: What are the effects, comparative effects, and harms of pharmacological interventions (e.g., mesalamine), non-pharmacological interventions (e.g., medical nutrition therapy), and elective surgery to prevent recurrent diverticulitis? • Do the (comparative) effects and harms vary by patient characteristics, course of illness, or other factors?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Post/View

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Population-based study of outcomes following an initial acute diverticular abscess.
Author Aquina CT., Becerra AZ., Xu Z., Justiniano CF., Noyes K., Monson JRT., Fleming FJ.
Country Surgical Health Outcomes and Research Enterprise (SHORE), Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA.
Year 2019
Numbers Pubmed ID: 30335195

Secondary Publication Information
There are currently no secondary publications defined for this study.


Extraction Form: Extraction Form for KQs 2 and 4
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 Elective surgery
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 No intervention (non-placebo) Nonoperative management
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Specific KQ KQ 4c: Surgery (recur prev)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
KQ 4c: Surgery (recur prev)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study Design Nonrandomized comparative study (NRCS)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Nonrandomized comparative study (NRCS)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country USA
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
USA
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funder Not reported (or unclear)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study name
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Associated articles
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Start and end years of the Study 2002
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2010
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria at least 18 years, acute diverticular abscess
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria laparotomy, laparoscopy, colectomy or stoma creation within 2 days of admission; concurrent diagnosis of colorectal cancer, cirrhosis, or ascites
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
if not an RCT, what was the directionality? Retrospective
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Specific population? No (all comers)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Was diverticulitis diagnosed with CT? ... Unclear/Multiple methods (explain) ... Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
If NRCS, what analytic method was used to account for differences between study arms? Multivariable analysis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
How was diverticulitis diagnosed NR
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Note/Comment about Design (or overall study)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question Elective surgery No intervention (non-placebo) Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant race/ethnicity characteristics Male 51.8 Male 46.3 Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
White 87.1 White 74.2
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Black 4.8 Black 11.9
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Other (or specific) race/ethnicity 1 - include race/ethnicity in parentheses Other...5.6 Other (or specific) race/ethnicity 1 - include race/ethnicity in parentheses Other...11.1
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Other (or specific) race/ethnicity 2 - include race/ethnicity in parentheses Unknown...2.5 Other (or specific) race/ethnicity 2 - include race/ethnicity in parentheses Unknown...2.7
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant Age - Continuous data (in years) Median 56 Median 58 Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
IQR 47, 66 IQR 47, 72
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant Age - Categorical data <=50 years <=50 years
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
35.3 33.8
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
51-65 years 51-65 years
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
39.2 30.7
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
>65 years >65 years
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
25.5 35.6
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participants with Un/Complicated Diverticulitis No data entered.
Specific Complications of Diverticulitis No data entered.
Number of Prior Episodes of Diverticulitis (categorical) Other_1 (include definition in %) >=1... 16.3 Other_1 (include definition in %) >=1... 10.0 Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
History of (Prior) Complicated Diverticulitis Not reported Not reported Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
KQ 4: Time Since Last Episode of Diverticulitis Not reported Not reported Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Note/Comment about baseline characteristics No data entered.
Number of Prior Episodes of Diverticulitis (continuous) Not reported Not reported Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
P-Value Adj. Odds Ratio (OR) Adj. 95% CI low Adj. 95% CI high
Outcome: Adverse events - Other      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Elective surgery No intervention (non-placebo) Comparison Measure Elective surgery vs. No intervention (non-placebo)


5 years

 N Analyzed 1660 5412 <0.001
Counts 166 309 1.88
Percentage 10.0 5.7 1.50
2.36
Outcome: Adverse events - Other      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery No intervention (non-placebo)


5 years

 N Analyzed 1660 5412
Counts 87 73
Percentage 5.2 1.3
Outcome: Adverse events - Other      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery No intervention (non-placebo)


5 years

 N Analyzed 1660 5412
Counts 80 243
Percentage 4.8 4.5
Outcome: Mortality - Diverticulitis-related      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery No intervention (non-placebo)


30 days

 N Analyzed 1660 5412
Counts 3 104
Percentage 0.2 1.9
P-Value
Outcome: Recurrence of diverticulitis      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Elective surgery No intervention (non-placebo) Comparison Measure Elective surgery vs. No intervention (non-placebo)


5 years

 N Analyzed 1660 5412 <0.001
Counts 70 1340
Percentage 4.2 24.8
Outcome: Recurrence of diverticulitis      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery No intervention (non-placebo)


5 years

 N Analyzed 5412
Counts 398
Percentage 7.4
Outcome: Recurrence of diverticulitis      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery No intervention (non-placebo)


5 years

 N Analyzed 5412
Counts 735
Percentage 13.6
P-Value
Outcome: Length of hospital (or intensive care unit) stay      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Elective surgery No intervention (non-placebo) Comparison Measure Elective surgery vs. No intervention (non-placebo)


5 years

 N Analyzed 1660 5412 <0.001
Mean 8.0 4.6
SD 7.8 18.5
P-Value
Outcome: Resource use      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Elective surgery No intervention (non-placebo) Comparison Measure Elective surgery vs. No intervention (non-placebo)


5 years

 N Analyzed 1660 5412 <0.001
Mean 70107 24490
SD 38832 95067
Outcome: Recurrence of diverticulitis      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery No intervention (non-placebo)


5 years

 N Enrolled 5412
Median 278
25th Percentile 93.5
75th Percentile 707


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
Q14: Cochrane - Random sequence generation (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate generation of a randomized sequence
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q15: Cochrane - Allocation concealment (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate concealment of allocations prior to assignment
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q16: Cochrane - Blinding of participants (performance bias): Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by participants during the study No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q17: Cochrane - Blinding of personnel/ care providers (performance bias): Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by personnel/care providers during the study. No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q18: Cochrane - FOR OBJECTIVE OUTCOMES - Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias): Detection bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by outcome assessors. No Data
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q20: Cochrane - Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q21: Cochrane - Selective Reporting (reporting bias): Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q22: Cochrane - Other Bias: Bias due to problems not covered elsewhere in the table. If yes, describe them in the Notes. Low
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q1: ROBINS-I 1.1 Is there potential for confounding of the effect of intervention in this study? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q3: ROBINS-I 1.4. Did the authors use an appropriate analysis method that controlled for all the important confounding domains? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q4: ROBINS-I 1.5. If Y/PY to 1.4: Were confounding domains that were controlled for measured validly and reliably by the variables available in this study? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q5: ROBINS-I 1.6. Did the authors control for any post-intervention variables that could have been affected by the intervention? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q6: ROBINS-I - Risk of bias judgement for BIAS DUE TO CONFOUNDING Low
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q7: ROBINS-I 2.1. Was selection of participants into the study (or into the analysis) based on participant characteristics observed after the start of intervention? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q8: ROBINS-I 2.2. If Y/PY to 2.1: Were the post-intervention variables that influenced selection likely to be associated with intervention? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q9: ROBINS-I 2.3 If Y/PY to 2.2: Were the post-intervention variables that influenced selection likely to be influenced by the outcome or a cause of the outcome? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q10: ROBINS-I 2.4. Do start of follow-up and start of intervention coincide for most participants? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q12: ROBINS-I 2.5. If Y/PY to 2.2 and 2.3, or N/PN to 2.4: Were adjustment techniques used that are likely to correct for the presence of selection biases? Not Applicable
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q13: ROBINS-I - Risk of bias judgement for BIAS IN SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS INTO THE STUDY Low
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q2: Did the study divide the follow up time of each individual participant into the different interventions? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q11: Did the start and follow up calendar years coincide for most participants in the study? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q19: Cochrane - FOR SUBJECTIVE OUTCOMES - Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias): Detection bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by outcome assessors. No Data
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q23: NHLBI - Were eligibility/selection criteria for the study population prespecified and clearly described? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q24: NHLBI - Was the test/service/intervention clearly described and delivered consistently across the study population? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q25: NHLBI - Were the outcome measures prespecified, clearly defined, valid, reliable, and assessed consistently across all study participants? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.