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

Relationship Between Diverticular Disease and Incisional Hernia After Elective Colectomy: a Population-Based Study.



Key Questions Addressed
4 KEY QUESTION 4 KQ 4: What are the effects, comparative effects, and harms of pharmacological interventions (e.g., mesalamine), non-pharmacological interventions (e.g., medical nutrition therapy), and elective surgery to prevent recurrent diverticulitis? • Do the (comparative) effects 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 Relationship Between Diverticular Disease and Incisional Hernia After Elective Colectomy: a Population-Based Study.
Author Perez NP., Chang DC., Goldstone RN., Bordeianou L., Ricciardi R., Cavallaro PM.
Country Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, GRB-425, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. npperez@mgh.harvard.edu.
Year 2020
Numbers Pubmed ID: 32748338

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 Elective surgery Colectomy
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Specific KQ KQ 4c: Surgery (recur prev)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study Design Other single group study (for harms only)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country USA
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funder Non-industry (fully)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study name New York (NY) Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Associated articles
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Start and end years of the Study 2010
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2016
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria 18 years old and older, undergoing elective open or laparoscopic sigmoid or left hemicolectomy (by ICD-9 code) for diverticulitis (by ICD-9 code)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria index colectomy were excluded, as well as patients with colon cancer who had been noted to have diverticular disease at any point prior to their colectomy. prior abdominal surgeries, concurrent stoma creations, hernia repairs, or surgeries of the liver, spleen, pancreas, kidneys, or uterus during their index colectomy, abdominal operations during their index admission after their index colectomy, organ space abscess, anastomotic leak, or wound disruption/infection within 30 days after index colectomy; inflammatory bowel disease; chemotherapy within 6 months prior to or after index colectomy; radiation therapy any time prior to or within 6 months after index colectomy; history of rectal, anal, or prostate cancer; and history of congenital abdominal wall defect.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Specific population? No (all comers)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Was diverticulitis diagnosed with CT? ... Unclear/Multiple methods (explain) ... NR
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
If NRCS, what analytic method was used to account for differences between study arms?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
How was diverticulitis diagnosed NR
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Note/Comment about Design (or overall study)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question Elective surgery Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant race/ethnicity characteristics Male 50.1
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
White 81.7
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Black 3.9
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Hispanic/Latino 7.1
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Asian 0.4
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant Age - Continuous data (in years) Mean 55.9
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
95% CI 55.6, 56.2
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant Age - Categorical data No data entered.
Participants with Un/Complicated Diverticulitis Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Specific Complications of Diverticulitis 100
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Number of Prior Episodes of Diverticulitis (categorical) Not reported
  • 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) Not reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: AE - Return to OR or unplanned procedure (CD III)      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Elective surgery


1 years

 N Analyzed 6811
Counts 129
Percentage 1.9


3 years

 N Analyzed 6811
Counts 272
Percentage 4.0


5 years

 N Analyzed 6811
Counts 334
Percentage 4.9


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
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q15: Cochrane - Allocation concealment (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate concealment of allocations prior to assignment
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q16: Cochrane - Blinding of participants (performance bias): Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by participants during the study
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q20: Cochrane - Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q21: Cochrane - Selective Reporting (reporting bias): Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q22: Cochrane - Other Bias: Bias due to problems not covered elsewhere in the table. If yes, describe them in the Notes.
  • 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.
  • 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.