ArticleFrontiers in radiology2026
Ultrasonography for suspected mild-to-moderate acute left colonic diverticulitis: a prospective head-to-head study with computed tomography.
Article in Frontiers in radiology, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The preferred imaging modality for acute left colonic diverticulitis (ALCD) remains controversial. This prospective study compares ultrasonography (US) and computed tomography (CT) in selected patients with clinically suspected mild-to-moderate localised ALCD. Materials and methods: Consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected localised mild-to-moderate ALCD underwent both US and CT within 1 h and before treatment initiation. US and CT examinations were performed and interpreted by three trained abdominal radiologists. A multidisciplinary consensus panel established the reference ("final") diagnosis, against which both tests were compared. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for each modality. Agreement between US and CT for severity stratification was also assessed. This study was not designed as a non-inferiority or equivalence analysis. Results: Sixty-three patients were included in the study; 50 (79.4%) had a final diagnosis of ALCD. US correctly identified 47/50 patients with ALCD, yielding a sensitivity of 97.9%, specificity of 91.7%, PPV of 97.9%, and NPV of 91.7%, while CT showed a sensitivity of 98.0%, specificity of 92.3%, PPV of 98.0%, and NPV of 92.3%. A moderate agreement was found between the two treatment modalities for differentiating stage 0 (mild-to-moderate) from stage >0 (severe) localised ALCD ( Conclusion: In this selected prospective cohort, ultrasonography performed by experienced abdominal radiologists showed diagnostic estimates similar to CT and identified most ALCD cases. Given the limited sample size, operator dependence, and non-independent reference standard, these findings should be interpreted cautiously and are most applicable to specialised centres with dedicated ultrasound expertise.
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.