Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Risk of colon cancer after computed tomography-diagnosed acute diverticulitis: is routine colonoscopy necessary?



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 Risk of colon cancer after computed tomography-diagnosed acute diverticulitis: is routine colonoscopy necessary?
Author Sallinen V., Mentula P., Leppäniemi A.
Country Department of Abdominal Surgery, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Haartmaninkatu 4, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland, ville.sallinen@helsinki.fi.
Year 2014
Numbers Pubmed ID: 24178863

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


Extraction Form: KQ 3: Colonoscopy
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 Colonoscopy
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 No Colonoscopy
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Study design NRCS (scopy vs. no scopy)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
if not an RCT, what was the directionality? Retrospective
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funder Not reported (or unclear)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Start and end years of the study 2006
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2010
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria Clinically and CT diagnosed acute diverticulitis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Specific population? No (anyone with Hx diverticulitis)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
No (anyone with Hx diverticulitis)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Note/Comment about Design (or overall study)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country Finland
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Comparison of colonoscopy vs. no colonoscopy? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Comparison of diverticulitis vs health control? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question Colonoscopy No Colonoscopy Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant race/ethnicity characteristics Male 37.8
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant age, continuous 58.5
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
13.9
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age >=50, % No data entered.
Participants with Un/Complicated Diverticulitis No data entered.
Note/Comment about baseline characteristics Male % and Age details are for all the recruited participants (of whom not all the participants may be of interest to us). Individual group baselines are not reported.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Alarm symptoms No data entered.



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: Colorectal cancer      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Colonoscopy No Colonoscopy


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

N Analyzed 394 142
Counts 9 0
Percentage 2.3 0
Outcome: Colorectal cancer      Population: Sigmoidectomy or subtotal colonoscopy
Time Point Measure Colonoscopy No Colonoscopy


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

N Analyzed 85
Counts 0
Percentage 0
Outcome: Adenoma, high grade dysplasia      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Colonoscopy No Colonoscopy


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

N Analyzed 394
Counts 4
Percentage 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)? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.