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 colonoscopy still mandatory after a CT diagnosis of left-sided diverticulitis: can colorectal cancer be confidently excluded?



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 colonoscopy still mandatory after a CT diagnosis of left-sided diverticulitis: can colorectal cancer be confidently excluded?
Author Lau KC., Spilsbury K., Farooque Y., Kariyawasam SB., Owen RG., Wallace MH., Makin GB.
Country Department of Surgery, Fremantle Hospital, Fremantle, Western Australia, Australia.
Year 2011
Numbers Pubmed ID: 21904141

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 colonoscopy not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Study design NRCS (scopy vs. no scopy)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
NRCS (scopy vs. no scopy)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
NRCS (scopy vs. no scopy)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
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 2003
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2009
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria diverticulitis confirmed by CT, colonoscopy patients only included who had a follow up colonoscopy within 1 year from the date of CT scan
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria colonoscopy >1 year from the date of CT scan
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Specific population? No (anyone with Hx diverticulitis)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
No (anyone with Hx diverticulitis)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
No (anyone with Hx diverticulitis)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Note/Comment about Design (or overall study) No colonoscopy arm means the data for colonoscopy not available.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country Australia
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Comparison of colonoscopy vs. no colonoscopy? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Comparison of diverticulitis vs health control? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question Colonoscopy No Colonoscopy Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant race/ethnicity characteristics Male 53 Male 47.6 Male 49.2
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant age, continuous 15-39y: 7.2%, 40-64y: 55.5%, 65+: 37.3% 15-39y: 8.5%, 40-64y: 54.2%, 65+: 37.3% 15-39y: 8.1%, 40-64y: 54.6%, 65+: 37.3%
  • 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
Outcome: Colorectal cancer      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Colonoscopy No Colonoscopy


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 319 769
Counts 9 14
Percentage 2.8 1.8
Outcome: Adenoma >=10 mm      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Colonoscopy No Colonoscopy


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 319
Counts 9
Percentage 2.6
Outcome: Adenoma, high grade dysplasia      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Colonoscopy No Colonoscopy


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 319
Counts 0
Percentage 0
Outcome: moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Colonoscopy No Colonoscopy


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 319
Counts 1
Percentage 0.3
Outcome: AE: Perforation      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Colonoscopy No Colonoscopy


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 319
Counts 0
Percentage 0


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.