Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25472747›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2015

Yield of colonoscopy after recent CT-proven uncomplicated acute diverticulitis: a comparative cohort study.

Lidewine Daniels, Çağdaş Ünlü, Thomas R de Wijkerslooth, Hein B Stockmann, Ernst J Kuipers, Marja A Boermeester, Evelien Dekker

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Follow-Up Colonoscopy for Detection of Missed Colorectal Cancer After Diverticulitis.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Diverticular Disease in the Elderly.Current gastroenterology reports · 2019
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Lidewine DanielsDepartment of Surgery - G4, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, l.daniels@amc.uva.nl.
Çağdaş Ünlü
Thomas R de Wijkerslooth
Hein B Stockmann
Ernst J Kuipers
Marja A Boermeester
Evelien Dekker
Academic Medical Center · NLUniversity of Amsterdam · NLErasmus MC · NLSpaarne Gasthuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent guidelines recommend routine follow-up colonoscopy after acute diverticulitis to confirm the diagnosis and exclude malignancy. Its value, however, has recently been questioned because of contradictory study results. Our objective was to compare the colonoscopic detection rate of advanced colonic neoplasia (ACN), comprising colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced adenoma (AA), in patients after a CT-proven primary episode of uncomplicated acute diverticulitis with average risk participants in a primary colonoscopy CRC screening program.

methodsA retrospective comparison was performed of prospectively collected data from cohorts derived from two multicenter randomized clinical trials executed in the Netherlands between 2009 and 2013. 401 uncomplicated diverticulitis patients and 1,426 CRC screening participants underwent colonic evaluation by colonoscopy. Main outcome was the diagnostic yield for ACN, calculated as number of diverticulitis patients and screening participants with ACN relative to their totals, with differences expressed as odds ratios (OR). The histopathology outcome of removed lesions during colonoscopy was used as definitive diagnosis.

resultsAA detection was similar [5.5 vs. 8.7%; OR 0.62 (95% CI 0.38-1.01); P = 0.053]. CRC was detected in 1.2% (5/401) of diverticulitis patients versus 0.6% (9/1,426) of screening participants [OR 1.30 (95% CI 0.39-4.36); P = 0.673]. ACN was diagnosed in 6.7% (27/401) of diverticulitis patients versus 9.1% (130/1,426) of screening participants [OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.45-1.11); P = 0.134]. ORs were adjusted for age, family history of CRC, smoking, BMI, and cecal intubation rate.

conclusionsACN detection does not differ significantly between patients with recent uncomplicated diverticulitis and average risk screening participants. Routine follow-up colonoscopy after primary CT-proven uncomplicated left-sided acute diverticulitis can be omitted; these patients can participate in CRC screening programs. Follow-up colonoscopy may be beneficial when targeted at high-risk patients, but such an approach first needs prospective evaluation.

Indexed as

AdenomaAgedCohort StudiesColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsDiverticulitis, ColonicEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsOutcome Assessment, Health CarePractice Guidelines as TopicProspective StudiesRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID25472747
OpenAlexW2060189413

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.