Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

A comparison of outcomes of emergent, urgent, and elective surgical treatment of diverticulitis.



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
    ) |

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title A comparison of outcomes of emergent, urgent, and elective surgical treatment of diverticulitis.
Author Moghadamyeghaneh Z., Carmichael JC., Smith BR., Mills S., Pigazzi A., Nguyen NT., Stamos MJ.
Country Department of Surgery, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Year 2015
Numbers Pubmed ID: 26116319

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 2012-2013
  • 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
    ) |
KQ 4c: Surgery (recur prev)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study Design Other single group study (for harms only)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Other single group study (for harms only)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Other single group study (for harms only)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country USA
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
USA
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
USA
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funder Not reported (or unclear)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study name ACS-NSQIP 2012-13
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Associated articles 20193685
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Start and end years of the Study 2012
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2013
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria Diverticulitis who underwent colon re-sections using procedural and diagnosis codes as specified by the ICD 9th Revision.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria Underwent colon surgery without colon resection and patients < 18 yo
  • 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? No imaging
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
If NRCS, what analytic method was used to account for differences between study arms?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
How was diverticulitis diagnosed Colonic diverticulitis based on ICD 9 code 562.11. Colon resection based on Current Procedural Terminology codes: 44140 to 44147, 44204 to 44208, 45110, and 45113.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Note/Comment about Design (or overall study)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question Elective surgery Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant race/ethnicity characteristics Male 45.9
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
White 91.8
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Black 6.4
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Asian 1
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Other (or specific) race/ethnicity 1 - include race/ethnicity in parentheses 0.7
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant Age - Continuous data (in years) Mean 58
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
SD 12
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Median 58
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant Age - Categorical data No data entered.
Participants with Un/Complicated Diverticulitis No data entered.
Specific Complications of Diverticulitis No data entered.
Number of Prior Episodes of Diverticulitis (categorical) No data entered.
History of (Prior) Complicated Diverticulitis No data entered.
KQ 4: Time Since Last Episode of Diverticulitis No data entered.
Note/Comment about baseline characteristics No data entered.
Number of Prior Episodes of Diverticulitis (continuous) No data entered.



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: AE - 30 day mortality (post-surgical, CD V)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


30 days

N Analyzed 9788
Percentage 0.2
Outcome: AE - Return to OR or unplanned procedure (CD III)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


N/A N/A

N Analyzed 9788
Percentage 4.1
Outcome: AE - Unplanned (re)hospitalization (CD IV)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


N/A N/A

N Analyzed 9788
Percentage 7.3
Outcome: AE - Sepsis (CD IV)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


N/A N/A

N Analyzed 9788
Percentage 0.6
Outcome: AE - Major cardiac event (CD IV)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


N/A N/A

N Analyzed 9788
Percentage 0.2
Outcome: AE - Major pulmonary event (CD IV)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


N/A N/A

N Analyzed 9788
Percentage 0.3
Outcome: AE - Reintubation (CD IV)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


N/A N/A

N Analyzed 9788
Percentage 0.5
Outcome: AE - Major cardiac event (CD IV)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


N/A N/A

N Analyzed 9788
Percentage 0.1


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
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q20: Cochrane - Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data No No missing outcome data.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q21: Cochrane - Selective Reporting (reporting bias): Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting No Study protocol is not available, but it appears that study reported all outcomes of interest.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q22: Cochrane - Other Bias: Bias due to problems not covered elsewhere in the table. If yes, describe them in the Notes. No Study appears to be free of other sources of bias.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q1: ROBINS-I 1.1 Is there potential for confounding of the effect of intervention in this study?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q3: ROBINS-I 1.4. Did the authors use an appropriate analysis method that controlled for all the important confounding domains?
  • 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?
  • 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?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q6: ROBINS-I - Risk of bias judgement for BIAS DUE TO CONFOUNDING
  • 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?
  • 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?
  • 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?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q10: ROBINS-I 2.4. Do start of follow-up and start of intervention coincide for most participants?
  • 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?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q13: ROBINS-I - Risk of bias judgement for BIAS IN SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS INTO THE STUDY
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q2: Did the study divide the follow up time of each individual participant into the different interventions?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q11: Did the start and follow up calendar years coincide for most participants in the study?
  • 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.
  • 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.