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

Antibiotics Do Not Reduce Length of Hospital Stay for Uncomplicated Diverticulitis in a Pragmatic Double-Blind Randomized Trial.



Key Questions Addressed
2 KEY QUESTION 2 KQ 2: What are the benefits and harms of various treatment options for the treatment of acute diverticulitis? KQ 2a. For patients with acute uncomplicated diverticulitis, what are the effectiveness and harms of hospitalization versus outpatient management of the acute episode? • Do the effects and harms vary by patient characteristics, presentation or course of illness, or other factors? KQ 2b. For patients with acute uncomplicated or complicated diverticulitis, what are the effects, comparative effects, and harms of antibiotics? • Do the effects and harms vary between patients with complicated or uncomplicated diverticulitis? • Do the (comparative) effects and harms vary by route of administration of antibiotics, type of antibiotic, and duration of course of antibiotics? • Do the (comparative) effects and harms vary by patient characteristics, presentation or course of illness, or other factors? KQ 2c. For patients with acute complicated diverticulitis, what are the effects and harms of interventional radiology procedures compared with conservative management? • Do the effects and harms vary by patient characteristics, presentation or course of illness, or other factors?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Post/View

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Antibiotics Do Not Reduce Length of Hospital Stay for Uncomplicated Diverticulitis in a Pragmatic Double-Blind Randomized Trial.
Author Jaung R., Nisbet S., Gosselink MP., Di Re A., Keane C., Lin A., Milne T., Su'a B., Rajaratnam S., Ctercteko G., Hsee L., Rowbotham D., Hill A., Bissett I.
Country Department of Surgery, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Year 2020
Numbers Pubmed ID: 32240832

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


Extraction Form: Extraction Form for KQs 2 and 4
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 Antibiotics: po amoxicillin/clavulanic +- IV cefuroxime & po metronidazole
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 Placebo
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Specific KQ KQ 2b: Antibiotics (acute)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
KQ 2b: Antibiotics (acute)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
KQ 2b: Antibiotics (acute)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
KQ 2b: Antibiotics (acute)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
KQ 2b: Antibiotics (acute)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study Design RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country ... Specify Other ... New Zealand, Australia
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funder Non-industry (fully)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study name STAND study (Selective Treatment with Antibiotics for Non-complicated Diverticulitis)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Associated articles
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Start and end years of the Study 2015
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2019
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria CT-proven Hinchey 1a uncomplicated acute diverticulitis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria ≥2 criteria for Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), temperature <36° or >38° C, heart rate >90 beats per minute, respiratory rate >20 breaths per minute or PaCO3 <32mmHg, white cell count <4 or >12 x 10 9/L); were unable to give consent, language barrier or cognitive impairment; previous drug reactions; prior usage of steroids; had been administered regular immunomodulators or biologics within the six months prior to presentation; used regular NSAIDs for greater than a week prior to presentation; had been administered >1 dose of intravenous or >2 doses of oral antibiotics during this illness but prior to enrolment in the study; were pregnant; had an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification (ASA) ≥4; or had CT evidence of complicated acute diverticulitis.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Specific population? No (all comers)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Was diverticulitis diagnosed with CT? CT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
If NRCS, what analytic method was used to account for differences between study arms?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
How was diverticulitis diagnosed CT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Note/Comment about Design (or overall study)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question Antibiotics: po amoxicillin/clavulanic +- IV cefuroxime & po metronidazole Placebo Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant race/ethnicity characteristics Male 40 Male 44
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant Age - Continuous data (in years) Median 56 (probably median) Median 59
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
IQR 53-59 (probably IQR) IQR 57-62
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant Age - Categorical data No data entered.
Participants with Un/Complicated Diverticulitis Complicated diverticulitis 0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Specific Complications of Diverticulitis No data entered.
Number of Prior Episodes of Diverticulitis (categorical) 0 71 0 68
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
History of (Prior) Complicated Diverticulitis Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
KQ 4: Time Since Last Episode of Diverticulitis Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Note/Comment about baseline characteristics No data entered.
Number of Prior Episodes of Diverticulitis (continuous) No data entered.



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
P-Value
Outcome: Need for procedural intervention      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Antibiotics: po amoxicillin/clavulanic +- IV cefuroxime & po metronidazole Placebo Comparison Measure ERROR vs. ERROR


30 days

 N Analyzed 84 94 0.1
Counts 2 0
note 1 incorrectly diagnosed as Hinchey 1a instead of complicated. 1 with pneumonia requiring drainage
P-Value P-Value
Outcome: Hospitalization (or re-hospitalization) for diverticulitis (avoidance)      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Antibiotics: po amoxicillin/clavulanic +- IV cefuroxime & po metronidazole Placebo Comparison Measure ERROR vs. ERROR


1 weeks

 N Analyzed 84 94 0.07
Counts 5 1


30 days

 N Analyzed 84 94 0.3
Counts 5 10
P-Value
Outcome: Mortality - All-cause (non-AE)      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Antibiotics: po amoxicillin/clavulanic +- IV cefuroxime & po metronidazole Placebo Comparison Measure ERROR vs. ERROR


30 days

 N Analyzed 84 94 0.3
Counts 1 0
note Stroke, unrelated to diverticulitis
Median Difference 25th percentile 75th percentile
Outcome: Length of hospital stay      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Antibiotics: po amoxicillin/clavulanic +- IV cefuroxime & po metronidazole Placebo Comparison Measure Antibiotics: po amoxicillin/clavulanic +- IV cefuroxime & po metronidazole vs. Placebo


N/A N/A

 N Analyzed 84 94 -5.9
Median 40.0 45.8 -15.5
25th Percentile 24.4 26.5 3.7
75th Percentile 57.6 60.2
P-Value
Outcome: Pain      Population: All Participants Between-Arm Comparisons
Time Point Measure Antibiotics: po amoxicillin/clavulanic +- IV cefuroxime & po metronidazole Placebo Comparison Measure ERROR vs. ERROR


24 hours

 N Analyzed 84 94 0.9
Median 2 3
25th Percentile 1 2
75th Percentile 3 3
Mean 3.2 3.0
95% CI low 2.4 2.3
95% CI high 3.9 3.7


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
Q14: Cochrane - Random sequence generation (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate generation of a randomized sequence No low risk
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q15: Cochrane - Allocation concealment (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate concealment of allocations prior to assignment No low risk
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q16: Cochrane - Blinding of participants (performance bias): Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by participants during the study No low risk
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q17: Cochrane - Blinding of personnel/ care providers (performance bias): Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by personnel/care providers during the study. No low risk
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q18: Cochrane - FOR OBJECTIVE OUTCOMES - Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias): Detection bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by outcome assessors. No low risk
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q20: Cochrane - Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data No low risk
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q21: Cochrane - Selective Reporting (reporting bias): Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting No low risk
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q22: Cochrane - Other Bias: Bias due to problems not covered elsewhere in the table. If yes, describe them in the Notes. No low risk
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q1: ROBINS-I 1.1 Is there potential for confounding of the effect of intervention in this study?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q3: ROBINS-I 1.4. Did the authors use an appropriate analysis method that controlled for all the important confounding domains?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q4: ROBINS-I 1.5. If Y/PY to 1.4: Were confounding domains that were controlled for measured validly and reliably by the variables available in this study?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q5: ROBINS-I 1.6. Did the authors control for any post-intervention variables that could have been affected by the intervention?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q6: ROBINS-I - Risk of bias judgement for BIAS DUE TO CONFOUNDING
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q7: ROBINS-I 2.1. Was selection of participants into the study (or into the analysis) based on participant characteristics observed after the start of intervention?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q8: ROBINS-I 2.2. If Y/PY to 2.1: Were the post-intervention variables that influenced selection likely to be associated with intervention?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q9: ROBINS-I 2.3 If Y/PY to 2.2: Were the post-intervention variables that influenced selection likely to be influenced by the outcome or a cause of the outcome?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q10: ROBINS-I 2.4. Do start of follow-up and start of intervention coincide for most participants?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q12: ROBINS-I 2.5. If Y/PY to 2.2 and 2.3, or N/PN to 2.4: Were adjustment techniques used that are likely to correct for the presence of selection biases?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q13: ROBINS-I - Risk of bias judgement for BIAS IN SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS INTO THE STUDY
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q2: Did the study divide the follow up time of each individual participant into the different interventions?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q11: Did the start and follow up calendar years coincide for most participants in the study?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q19: Cochrane - FOR SUBJECTIVE OUTCOMES - Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias): Detection bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by outcome assessors. No low risk
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q23: NHLBI - Were eligibility/selection criteria for the study population prespecified and clearly described? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q24: NHLBI - Was the test/service/intervention clearly described and delivered consistently across the study population? 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
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.