Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32073652›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of surgery2020

Observational versus antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated diverticulitis: an individual-patient data meta-analysis.

S T van Dijk, A Chabok, M G Dijkgraaf, M A Boermeester, K Smedh

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06517264 (Multicenter Clinical Trial on the Effectiveness and Safety of Outpatient Treatment of Uncomplicated Acute Diverticulitis Without Antibiotics Compared to Treatment With Antibiotics. ADIANA TRIAL), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

NCT06517264 naenrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Multicenter Clinical Trial on the Effectiveness and Safety of Outpatient Treatment of Uncomplicated Acute Diverticulitis Without Antibiotics Compared to Treatment With Antibiotics. ADIANA TRIAL

TypeinterventionalSponsorMonica Mengual BallesterRan2024 to 2026Enrolled282ConditionsDiverticulitis, ColonicArmsAntibiotic, Non antibiotic
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Challenging Surgical Dogma: Controversies in Diverticulitis.The Surgical clinics of North America · 2021
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Evidence-based treatment strategies for acute diverticulitis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2021
    Review
  11. Review
  12. [Recommendations for treatment of diverticular disease].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2020
    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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

S T van DijkDepartment of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
A ChabokDepartment of Surgery, and Centre for Clinical Research Uppsala University, Västmanlands Hospital, Västerås, Sweden.
M G DijkgraafDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
M A BoermeesterDepartment of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
K SmedhDepartment of Surgery, and Centre for Clinical Research Uppsala University, Västmanlands Hospital, Västerås, Sweden.
Academic Medical Center · NLUppsala University · SEVästmanlands sjukhus Västerås · SE

Funding

Maag Lever Darm StichtingUppsala and Örebro Regional Research FoundationZonMw
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTwo RCTs (AVOD and DIABOLO) demonstrated no difference in recovery or adverse outcomes when antibiotics for acute uncomplicated diverticulitis were omitted. Both trials showed non-significantly higher rates of complicated diverticulitis and surgery in the non-antibiotic groups. This meta-analysis of individual-patient data aimed to explore adverse outcomes and identify patients at risk who may benefit from antibiotic treatment.

methodsIndividual-patient data from those with uncomplicated diverticulitis from two RCTs were pooled. Risk factors for adverse outcomes and the effect of observational management were assessed using logistic regression analyses. P < 0·025 was considered statistically significant owing to multiple testing adjustment.

resultsIn total, 545 patients in the observational group and 564 in the antibiotics group were included. No statistical differences were found in 1-year follow-up rates of ongoing diverticulitis (7·2 versus 5·0 per cent in observation versus antibiotics groups respectively; P = 0·062), recurrent diverticulitis (8·6 versus 9·6 per cent; P = 0·610), complicated diverticulitis (4·0 versus 2·1 per cent; P = 0·079) and sigmoid resection (5·0 versus 2·5 per cent; P = 0·214). An initial pain score greater than 7, white blood cell count exceeding 13·5 × 10

conclusionObservational management of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis is safe. Some statistical uncertainty remains, depending on the thresholds of clinical relevance, owing to small differences, but no subgroup that would benefit from antibiotic treatment was apparent.

Indexed as

Conservative TreatmentWatchful WaitingAnti-Bacterial AgentsColectomyDiverticulitis, ColonicHumansLogistic ModelsRecurrenceTreatment OutcomeAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID32073652
PMCPMC7318319
OpenAlexW3009007316

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.