Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28608124›Full record

ReviewDer Internist2017

[Diverticulitis : Domain of conservative or drug therapy?]

S Böhm, W Kruis

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Internist, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 89% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

S BöhmSpital Bülach, Spitalstr. 24, 8180, Bülach, Schweiz. stephan.boehm@spitalbuelach.ch.
W KruisEvangelisches Krankenhaus Köln-Kalk, Köln, Deutschland.
Evangelisches Krankenhaus Kalk · DESpital Linth · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increasing interest in diverticular disease by the scientific community in the last 10-15 years has resulted in an increased number of publications. Among other things, nonevidence-based therapeutic paradigms were tested in randomized, controlled therapy studies. The importance of surgery in the therapy of diverticulitis has diminished in recent years; in particular, it has no role in the treatment of diverticulitis types 1a, 1b, and 2a according to the Classification of Diverticular Disease (CDD) treated successfully by conservative means. Surgery has only a subordinate role in recurrent type 3b diverticulitis according to the CDD. Diverticulitis is therefore increasingly treated using conservative or drug therapy. However, only the classic, established antibiotics are currently available as effective drugs for the treatment of diverticular disease. However, these are also decreasing in significance. Over 90% of patients with type 1a/1b diverticulitis can be safely treated according to current data without the use of antibiotics. It is possible that type 2a diverticulitis will also be successfully treated without antibiotics in the future. Substances such as rifaximin, mesalazine, or probiotics, which were tested above all in patients with chronic recurrent forms (CDD type 3a/3b), have not yet been established.

Indexed as

Conservative TreatmentAnti-Bacterial AgentsDiverticulitisHumansMesalamineProbioticsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRifamycinsRifaximinAnti-Bacterial AgentsMesalamineRifamycinsRifaximinAntibioticsDiverticulitis, classificationMesalazineProbioticsRifaximin

Identifiers

PMID28608124
OpenAlexW2625026804

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.