ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
EAES-SAGES clinical practice guideline update: multi-society recommendations on key controversies in the management of diverticular disease.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
35 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe identified areas of controversy in the management of patients with diverticular disease to develop key questions addressing the management of symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease (SUDD), uncomplicated diverticulitis, and complicated diverticulitis.
methodsWe performed a systematic review to identify randomized trials and cohort studies addressing our key questions. Informed by an updated evidence synthesis, an international, multidisciplinary panel of gastrointestinal surgeons, gastroenterologists, patient partners, and methodologists applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-to-decision framework during panel consensus meetings to derive recommendations for the management of patients with diverticular disease.
resultsThe systematic review identified 27 studies representing very low to moderate certainty evidence. The panel made the following recommendations: 1. In patients with SUDD, we suggest rifaximin or mesalamine over standard supportive care (conditional recommendation); 2. In patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis, we suggest no routine antibiotics (conditional recommendation); 3. In patients with persistent symptoms following an episode of recurrent uncomplicated diverticulitis, we suggest elective resection over observation (conditional recommendation); 4. In patients who have recovered from a first episode of uncomplicated diverticulitis, we suggest no routine follow-up colonoscopy (conditional recommendation); 5. In patients who have recovered from a first episode of diverticulitis complicated by an abscess, we suggest elective resection over surveillance (conditional recommendation). The panel judged that a significant proportion of patients would place a high value in reducing the risk of recurrence at 1 year but also acknowledged the lack of evidence addressing prioritized outcomes including 30-day major complications, need for emergency surgery, stoma-free survival at 1 year, and quality of life at 1 year. Given that patient values and preferences may vary, clinicians are encouraged to apply patient-centered decision-making and discuss the alternatives.
conclusionThis clinical practice guideline update provides evidence-informed recommendations to support patients and clinicians in the management of diverticular disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42875633What 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.