Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Yield of colonoscopy after recent CT-proven uncomplicated acute diverticulitis: a comparative cohort study.



Key Questions Addressed
3 KQ 3: What are the benefits and harms of colonoscopy (or other colon imaging test) following an episode of acute diverticulitis? KQ 3a. What is the incidence of malignant and premalignant colon tumors found by colonoscopy, and what is the incidence of colon cancer mortality among patients undergoing screening? KQ 3b. What are the procedure-related and other harms of colonoscopy or CT colonography? KQ 3c. What is the frequency of inadequate imaging due to intolerance or technical feasibility? • Do the benefits and harms vary by patient characteristics, course of illness, or other factors?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Yield of colonoscopy after recent CT-proven uncomplicated acute diverticulitis: a comparative cohort study.
Author Daniels L., Ünlü Ç., de Wijkerslooth TR., Stockmann HB., Kuipers EJ., Boermeester MA., Dekker E.
Country Department of Surgery - G4, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, l.daniels@amc.uva.nl.
Year 2015
Numbers Pubmed ID: 25472747

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


Extraction Form: KQ 3: Colonoscopy
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 Diverticulitis Patients From the DIABOLO Trial
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 Screening individuals From Screening' (COCOS) trial
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Study design NRCS (diverticulitis vs. healthy)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
NRCS (diverticulitis vs. healthy)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
if not an RCT, what was the directionality? Retrospective
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funder Non-industry (fully)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Start and end years of the study 2009
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2013
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria Primary colonoscopy screening population: Only those participants who were randomly invited for primary colonoscopy screening and decided to participate were included in the current study, 50-75 years. Uncomplicated Diverticulitis Population: adult patients, CT proven uncomplicated left sided acute diverticulitis, participating in DIABOLO trial. Patients who had undergone follow up colonoscopy within 6 months were included int his study.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria Primary colonoscopy screening population: not willing to participate Uncomplicated Diverticulitis Population: excluded based on DIABOLO trial exclusion criteria
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Specific population? Hx uncomplicated diverticulitis only
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Other (define) ... Any individual for the screening cohort.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Note/Comment about Design (or overall study)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country Netherlands
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Comparison of colonoscopy vs. no colonoscopy? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Comparison of diverticulitis vs health control? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question Diverticulitis Patients Screening individuals Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant race/ethnicity characteristics Male 47.6 Male 50.9 Male 50.1
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant age, continuous 57 60
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
49 55
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
65 65
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age >=50, % No data entered.
Participants with Un/Complicated Diverticulitis No data entered.
Note/Comment about baseline characteristics No data entered.
Alarm symptoms No data entered.



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
P-Value
Outcome: Serrated polyp      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Diverticulitis Patients Screening individuals Comparison Measure Diverticulitis Patients vs. Screening individuals


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

N Analyzed 401 1426 <0.001
Counts 53 388
Percentage 13.2 27.2
P-Value
Outcome: Adenoma >=10 mm      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Diverticulitis Patients Screening individuals Comparison Measure Diverticulitis Patients vs. Screening individuals


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

N Analyzed 401 1426 0.002
Counts 10 95
Percentage 2.5 6.7
P-Value
Outcome: Adenoma, high grade dysplasia      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Diverticulitis Patients Screening individuals Comparison Measure Diverticulitis Patients vs. Screening individuals


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

N Analyzed 401 1426 0.111
Counts 4 34
Percentage 1.0 2.4
P-Value
Outcome: Advanced adenoma      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Diverticulitis Patients Screening individuals Comparison Measure Diverticulitis Patients vs. Screening individuals


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

N Analyzed 401 1426 0.053 (adjusted)
Counts 22 124
Percentage 5.5 8.7
P-Value
Outcome: Colorectal cancer      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Diverticulitis Patients Screening individuals Comparison Measure Diverticulitis Patients vs. Screening individuals


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

N Analyzed 401 1426 0.673
Counts 5 9
Percentage 1.2 0.6
P-Value
Outcome: Advanced Colonic Neoplasia      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Diverticulitis Patients Screening individuals Comparison Measure Diverticulitis Patients vs. Screening individuals


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

N Analyzed 401 1426 0.134 (adjusted)
Counts 27 130
Percentage 6.7 9.1


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
Q23: NHLBI - Were eligibility/selection criteria for the study population prespecified and clearly described? 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
    ) |
If this study was an NRCS or a single-group study, did the study report adjusted results that were for differences between groups (in the case of NRCSs) or differences between subgroups (in the case of single group studies)? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.