ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Is there consensus on diagnostics and treatment in colonic diverticulitis? Results of international survey.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical guidelines (CGs) developed by expert communities benefit both the patient and the clinician. Meanwhile a considerable proportion of specialists are not familiar with or follow them in their daily practice. Colonic diverticulitis (CD) is the third most common cause of hospitalization among patients with gastrointestinal diseases and common indication for colon resection. Actual tactics for diagnosis and treatment of CD, as well as data on what influences its choice and how the decisions made agree with the existing CGs can be identified by anonymous surveys.
methodsAn anonymous internet survey of surgeons and coloproctologists was conducted. Groups of questions included demographics of the respondents; self-esteem score; sources of guidance in decision-making; classification systems for CD; preferable diagnostic tests; management of CD; indications for elective surgery; and outcomes of surgical treatment and others (n = 17). The study was conducted in accordance with the CHERRIES criteria. The required minimum sample size was calculated as 377 participants.
resultsThe study involved 401 respondents from 9 countries: 76.1% were general surgeons and 14.5% were colorectal surgeons. Excellent or good knowledge of the problem was claimed by 82.8% of the colorectal vs 66.2% of the general surgeons (p = 0.013). In decision-making respondents were largely guided by their professional experience, methods adopted in their clinic and domestic CGs. General Surgeons more often chose tactics inconsistent with CGs than coloproctologists. The largest differences between subgroups were noted for awareness of the reversal of Hartmann's procedure, most common postoperative complications and indications for elective surgery.
conclusionAdherence to the existing CGs was poor, which entails significant variation in the approaches practiced by the respondents from different cohorts. There is no consensus on the aspects that are not yet covered in the CGs. Further research is needed to elucidate these gaps and update the guidelines accordingly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40204904What 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.