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

Is early colonoscopy after CT-diagnosed diverticulitis still 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
    ) |
  • Post/View

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Is early colonoscopy after CT-diagnosed diverticulitis still necessary?
Author Suhardja TS., Norhadi S., Seah EZ., Rodgers-Wilson S.
Country Department of General Surgery, Dandenong Hospital, Monash Health, 135 David Street, Dandenong, VIC, 3175, Australia. thomas_suhardja@yahoo.com.
Year 2017
Numbers Pubmed ID: 28035461

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
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Study design Single group, with subgroup analyses
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Single group, with subgroup analyses
  • 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 2011
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2013
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria Patients diagnosed with acute colonic diverticulitis on CT scan and received follow-up colonoscopy
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria NR
  • 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 Australia
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Comparison of colonoscopy vs. no colonoscopy? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Comparison of diverticulitis vs health control? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Subgroup analyses? Complicated vs uncomplicated D
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Complicated vs uncomplicated D
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question Colonoscopy Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant race/ethnicity characteristics Male 46.1 Male 46.1
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant age, continuous 59.3 59.3
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age >=50, % NR NR
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participants with Un/Complicated Diverticulitis Complicated diverticulitis 27.4 Complicated diverticulitis 27.4
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Uncomplicated diverticulitis 72.6 Uncomplicated diverticulitis 72.6
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Note/Comment about baseline characteristics No data entered.
Alarm symptoms No data entered.



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: Adenoma, high grade dysplasia      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Colonoscopy


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 270
Counts 8
Percentage 3.0
Outcome: Adenoma, high grade dysplasia      Population: uncomplicated diverticulitis
Time Point Measure Colonoscopy


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 196
Counts 4
Percentage 2.0
Outcome: Adenoma, high grade dysplasia      Population: complicated diverticulitis (abscess)
Time Point Measure Colonoscopy


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 74
Counts 4
Percentage 5.4
Outcome: Colorectal cancer      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Colonoscopy


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 270
Counts 5
Percentage 1.9
Outcome: Colorectal cancer      Population: uncomplicated diverticulitis
Time Point Measure Colonoscopy


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 196
Counts 1
Percentage 0.5
Outcome: Colorectal cancer      Population: complicated diverticulitis (abscess)
Time Point Measure Colonoscopy


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 74
Counts 4
Percentage 5.4
Outcome: Failed/incomplete procedure      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Colonoscopy


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 270
Counts 10
Percentage 3.7
Outcome: Failed/incomplete procedure      Population: uncomplicated diverticulitis
Time Point Measure Colonoscopy


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 196
Counts 8
Percentage 4.1
Outcome: Failed/incomplete procedure      Population: complicated diverticulitis (abscess)
Time Point Measure Colonoscopy


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 74
Counts 2
Percentage 2.7


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.