Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Surgery After an Initial Episode of Uncomplicated Diverticulitis: Does Time to Resection Matter?



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 Surgery After an Initial Episode of Uncomplicated Diverticulitis: Does Time to Resection Matter?
Author Varma S., Mehta A., Canner JK., Azar F., Efron DT., Efron J., Safar B., Sakran JV.
Country Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Year 2019
Numbers Pubmed ID: 30527478

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
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Specific KQ KQ 4c: Surgery (recur prev)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study Design Other single group study (for harms only)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country USA
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funder Non-industry (fully)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study name California State Inpatient Database 2005-13
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Associated articles
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Start and end years of the Study 2005
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2011
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria experienced an initial episode of uncomplicated diverticulitis (562.10, 562.11), were medically managed during their initial presentation, and underwent a bowel resection afterward
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria diagnoses for malignancy (153, 196, 197, 198), undergoing spinal cord (3.9), thorax (33.2, 34.9), ventral hernia (53.4, 53.5), and salpingo-oophorectomies (65.4, 65.6) procedures; or missing clinical factors
  • 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) ... No information reported on diagnosis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
If NRCS, what analytic method was used to account for differences between study arms?
  • 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 Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant race/ethnicity characteristics Male 48.4
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
White 69.0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Black 3.5
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Hispanic/Latino 18.9
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Other (or specific) race/ethnicity 1 - include race/ethnicity in parentheses 8.6 (other/missing)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant Age - Continuous data (in years) Mean 55.3
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
SD 13.8
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant Age - Categorical data No data entered.
Participants with Un/Complicated Diverticulitis Complicated diverticulitis 11
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Uncomplicated diverticulitis 89
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Specific Complications of Diverticulitis 100
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Number of Prior Episodes of Diverticulitis (categorical) 1 70.8
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 21.8
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
>=3 7.4
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
History of (Prior) Complicated Diverticulitis Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
KQ 4: Time Since Last Episode of Diverticulitis Range 30d-2y
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Note/Comment about baseline characteristics No data entered.
Number of Prior Episodes of Diverticulitis (continuous) Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: AE - Unplanned (re)hospitalization (CD IV)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


30 days

N Analyzed 3533
Counts
Percentage 4.2


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 Low
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q21: Cochrane - Selective Reporting (reporting bias): Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting Low
  • 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?
  • 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.