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

A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of a multi-strain probiotic in treatment of symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease.-B



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 A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of a multi-strain probiotic in treatment of symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease.-B
Author Kvasnovsky CL., Bjarnason I., Donaldson AN., Sherwood RA., Papagrigoriadis S.
Country University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Year 2017
Numbers Pubmed ID: 28528364

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 Pharm: Probiotics Symprove
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 Placebo
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Specific KQ KQ 4a: Pharmacologic (recur prev)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
KQ 4a: Pharmacologic (recur prev)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study Design RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country USA
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Canada
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Germany
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Other ... Finland, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, South Africa (from NCT)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funder Industry (fully or in part)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study name
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Associated articles
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02115867
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Start and end years of the Study 2007
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2011
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria Persistent abdominal symptoms (of >= 3-month duration) w/ a diagnosis of uncomplicated diverticulosis (diagnosis of diverticulosis established by colonoscopy and/or CT scan, with or without raised inflammatory markers, and without a past diagnosis of IBS).
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria Surgery for diverticulitis or its attendant complications, right-sided diverticulitis, and predominant bleeding symptoms.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Specific population? No (all comers)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Was diverticulitis diagnosed with CT? ... Unclear/Multiple methods (explain) ... Colonoscopy and/or CT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
If NRCS, what analytic method was used to account for differences between study arms?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
How was diverticulitis diagnosed Colonoscopy and/or CT scan, w/ or w/o raised inflammatory markers, and without a past diagnosis of IBS
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Note/Comment about Design (or overall study)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question Pharm: Probiotics Placebo Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant race/ethnicity characteristics Male 55.6 Male 44.4
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
White 51.7 White 48.3
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Black 50 Black 50
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Other (or specific) race/ethnicity 1 - include race/ethnicity in parentheses 33.3 Other (or specific) race/ethnicity 1 - include race/ethnicity in parentheses 66.7
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant Age - Continuous data (in years) Median 60 Median 63.5
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
IQR 52-72 IQR 54-72.5
  • 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
Hazard Ratio (HR) 95% CI low 95% CI high
Outcome: Acute Colonic Diverticulitis free time      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Pharm: Probiotics Placebo Comparison Measure Pharm: Probiotics vs. Placebo


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed NR NR 0.12
Percentage 4 32 0.01
0.97


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 No Randomization performed with a computerized protocol.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q15: Cochrane - Allocation concealment (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate concealment of allocations prior to assignment No The placebo and probiotic were packaged in identical sealed boxes, identified by a trial batch/code number only.
  • 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 Double-blind
  • 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 Double-blind
  • 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 Outcome assessors were blinded (from NCT).
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q20: Cochrane - Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data No Reasons for missing data were <20% for short-term follow-up and reasons for missing outcome data were explained.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q21: Cochrane - Selective Reporting (reporting bias): Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting Yes Poorly reported, post hoc, subgroup analysis that is likely highly at risk for reporting bias.
  • 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. Yes Outcome assessors were blinded (from NCT).
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q23: NHLBI - Were eligibility/selection criteria for the study population prespecified and clearly described?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q24: NHLBI - Was the test/service/intervention clearly described and delivered consistently across the study population?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q25: NHLBI - Were the outcome measures prespecified, clearly defined, valid, reliable, and assessed consistently across all study participants?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.