• Home
  • Published Projects
  • Registries
Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Diagnostic impact of routine colonoscopy following acute diverticulitis: A multicenter study in 808 patients and controls.



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
    ) |
  • Post/View

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Diagnostic impact of routine colonoscopy following acute diverticulitis: A multicenter study in 808 patients and controls.
Author Lecleire S., Nahon S., Alatawi A., Antonietti M., Chaput U., Di-Fiore A., Alhameedi R., Marteau P., Ducrotté P., Dray X.
Country Gastroenterology Department, Rouen University Hospital, University of Rouen, Rouen, France ; Paris Diderot University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France ; Department of Gastroenterology, Hôpital Lariboisière, Paris, France.
Year 2014
Numbers Pubmed ID: 25083288

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


Extraction Form: KQ 3: Colonoscopy
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 Acute diverticulitis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 Control group sex and age matched to the diverticulitis group
  • 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 2005
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2011
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria Group 1: acute diverticulitis, underwent colonoscopy within 6 months following the acute episode Group 2: sex and age matched with a familial history of colorectal adenoma or neoplasia
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria patients with haematochezia, recent change in bpwel habits, personal history of colorectal neoplasia, undergone colonoscopy within the 2 years before the episode of diverticulitis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Specific population? No (anyone with Hx diverticulitis)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Other (define) ...
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Note/Comment about Design (or overall study)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country France
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Comparison of colonoscopy vs. no colonoscopy? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Comparison of diverticulitis vs health control? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question Acute diverticulitis Control group Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant race/ethnicity characteristics Male 41 Male 41 Male 41
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant age, continuous 60.9 60.7
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
12.6 13.4
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age >=50, % No data entered.
Participants with Un/Complicated Diverticulitis Complicated diverticulitis 10
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Note/Comment about baseline characteristics No data entered.
Alarm symptoms No data entered.



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: Adenoma >=10 mm      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Acute diverticulitis Control group


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 404 404
Counts 9 23
Percentage 2.2 5.7
Outcome: Adenoma, high grade dysplasia      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Acute diverticulitis Control group


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 404 404
Counts 2 6
Percentage 0.5 1.4
Outcome: Adenoma, villous      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Acute diverticulitis Control group


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 404 404
Counts 3 3
Percentage 0.7 0.7
Outcome: Colorectal cancer      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Acute diverticulitis Control group


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 404 404
Counts 1 1
Percentage 0.25 0.25
P-Value
Outcome: Advance Adenoma      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Acute diverticulitis Control group Comparison Measure Acute diverticulitis vs. Control group


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 404 404 0.01
Counts 11 27
Percentage 2.7 6.7


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)? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.