ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Colonoscopy follow-up for acute diverticulitis: a multi-centre review.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis on key controversies in the management of diverticular disease: a multi-society collaboration.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Utility of Colonoscopy After Acute Colonic Diverticulitis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Evaluation of Routine Flexible Sigmoidoscopy After CT-Confirmed Acute Diverticulitis: A Retrospective Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Diverticulitis in Older Adults: A Review of Etiology, Diagnosis, and Management.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the value of routine colonoscopy, post-computed tomography (CT) confirmed diverticulitis. The current practice is to scope patients 6-8 weeks post an episode of acute diverticulitis. We hypothesise that this practice has a relatively low value.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted on adult patients presenting acute diverticulitis n = 1680 (uncomplicated = 1005, complicated = 675) between January 2017 and July 2019 at three tertiary hospitals in Perth. The National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) positive cases were the reference group (n = 1800). Data were analysed using SPSS v.27.
resultsOne thousand two hundred seventy-two patients had a subsequent colonoscopy during the follow-up period, of which 24% (n = 306) were uncomplicated diverticulitis, 34% (n = 432) complicated diverticulitis, and 42% (n = 534) as the reference cohort. Patient demographics were similar between centres and subgroups. Incidence of primary colorectal cancer (CRC) was n = 3 (1.0%), n = 9 (2.1%), and n = 10 (1.9%) for uncomplicated diverticulitis, complicated diverticulitis, and NBCSP, respectively (p = 0.50). Subgroup analysis by age revealed a statistically significant higher rate of negative colonoscopy in uncomplicated diverticulitis patients aged over 50.
conclusionRoutine colonoscopy for patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis is not a cost-effective strategy for colorectal cancer screening patients over 50 years. These patients should participate in the NBCSP with biennial FOBT instead. We suggest continuing routine endoscopic evaluation for patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis under 50 years and all patients admitted with complicated diverticulitis.
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.