Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

The impact of delaying elective resection of diverticulitis on laparoscopic conversion rate.



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 The impact of delaying elective resection of diverticulitis on laparoscopic conversion rate.
Author Simianu V, Sinanan M, Bastawrous A, Billingham R, Fichera A, Florence M, Herzig D, Johnson E, Steele S, Thirlby R, Flum D
Country SCOAP-CERTAIN Collaborative
Year 2015
Numbers Pubmed ID: 25773308

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 Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Associated articles
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Start and end years of the Study 2010
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2013
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria underwent laparoscopic colon resection for diverticulitis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria none
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
if not an RCT, what was the directionality? Prospective
  • 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?
  • 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 47
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
White 87.2
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant Age - Continuous data (in years) Mean 57.8
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
SD 12.7
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant Age - Categorical data No data entered.
Participants with Un/Complicated Diverticulitis Not reported 100
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Specific Complications of Diverticulitis Colovesicular fistula
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
8.7
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Current GI bleed
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2.3
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Stricture
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
4.4
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Other fistula
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
3.8
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Number of Prior Episodes of Diverticulitis (categorical) 0 13.9
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
1 15.2
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 14.5
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
>=3 52.5 (3-10)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Other_1 (include definition in %) 4.0 (>10)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
History of (Prior) Complicated Diverticulitis Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
KQ 4: Time Since Last Episode of Diverticulitis Not reported
  • 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 - Serious (SAE)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


30 days

N Analyzed 1790
Counts 139
Percentage 7.8
Outcome: AE - Return to OR or unplanned procedure (CD III)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


30 days

N Analyzed 1790
Counts 210
Percentage 11.7


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 other 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.