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

Follow up colonoscopy may be omissible in uncomplicated left-sided acute diverticulitis diagnosed with CT- a retrospective 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
    ) |
  • Post/View

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Follow up colonoscopy may be omissible in uncomplicated left-sided acute diverticulitis diagnosed with CT- a retrospective cohort study.
Author O'Donohoe N., Chandak P., Likos-Corbett M., Yee J., Hurndall K., Rao C., Engledow AH.
Country Department of Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich, London, UK. contactnollaig@hotmail.com.
Year 2019
Numbers Pubmed ID: 31882879

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, no subgroup analysis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Single group, no subgroup analysis
  • 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 2014
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2017
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria Patients over the age of 18 with CT-diagnosed uncomplicated left-sided diverticulitis (with a modified Hinchey classification of 0 or 1a), admitted 2014–2017, with a follow-up colonoscopy 4–6 weeks after admission were eligible.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria Patients with right sided diverticulitis or complicated diverticulitis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Specific population? Hx uncomplicated diverticulitis only
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Hx uncomplicated diverticulitis only
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Note/Comment about Design (or overall study) Country: United Kingdom
  • 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 Colonoscopy Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant race/ethnicity characteristics Male 28
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant age, continuous 63
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
29
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
90
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age >=50, % NR
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participants with Un/Complicated Diverticulitis Uncomplicated diverticulitis 100
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
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


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 204
Counts 0
Percentage 0
Outcome: Procedural complication      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Colonoscopy


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 204
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)? Not Applicable
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.