ArticleCureus2020
Differentiating Colorectal Carcinoma From Diverticulitis With Computerised Tomography: Does Every Patient Need Follow-Up Colonoscopy After an Episode of Acute Diverticulitis?
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and medical management of acute colonic diverticulitis developed by the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases (KASID).Intestinal research · 2026Review
- Sigmoid diverticulitis mimicking colorectal cancer: A case report.Radiology case reports · 2026Article
- DIVERT-Ca: unveiling the hidden link between acute diverticulitis and colorectal cancer risk-multicentre retrospective study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose To correlate computerised tomography (CT) and endoscopic follow-up (FU) in differentiating presentations of acute diverticulitis (AD) and colorectal carcinoma (CRC). Methods Patient's discharge summaries between April 2018 and September 2019, stating AD under-diagnosis were retrieved. Admission details, CT reports, endoscopic findings and histopathology results were retrospectively collected from prospectively maintained data. Results In our study period of 17 months, we identified 150 patients with an admission diagnosis of AD. In total, 134 patients had a CT confirmed diagnosis of AD; 61% had uncomplicated acute diverticulitis (UAD) and 39% complicated acute diverticulitis (CAD). The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and 59% were female. Of the 134, 15 patients were excluded, and 119 with AD were discharged with a plan to have FU endoscopy. Overall, 75% of the patients managed to undergo complete endoscopic investigation, 4% had incomplete endoscopy, and 21% failed to attend endoscopy. Follow-up (FU) endoscopic investigation found polyps in 20 patients; seven were reported as tubular adenomas with low-grade dysplasia and 10 as non-concerning hyperplastic or sessile polyps. One was inflammatory, and two were malignant. CT scans for two patients with malignant polyps were reported as CAD with suspicion of sigmoid cancer in one and right-sided perforated diverticulitis in the other. Both patients were female aged over 60 years. Conclusions This study demonstrates that a selective approach is more appropriate for endoscopic FU after an episode of AD. Risk stratification is required to allocate FU endoscopic investigation for patients at high risk for CRC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.