BACKGROUND: The lack of pathognomonic findings and the chance of complicated disease have resulted in the widespread use of additional imaging to diagnose acute colonic diverticulitis (ACD). The added value of additional imaging in the diagnostic workup of patients suspected of ACD is not well defined. AIMS: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature of the accuracy of the clinical evaluation and diagnostic modalities for patients with suspected ACD, to come to an evidence-based approach to diagnose ACD. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that reported diagnostic accuracy of the clinical diagnosis and diagnostic modalities in patients with suspected diverticulitis were performed. Study quality was assessed with the STARD checklist. True-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative findings were extracted and pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity per diagnostic test were calculated, if applicable. RESULTS: The overall quality of the studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical diagnosis, contrast enema and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were moderate to poor and not suitable for meta-analysis. Sensitivity of the clinical diagnosis varied between 64% and 68%. Ultrasound (US) and computed tomography (CT) studies were eligible for meta-analysis. Summary sensitivity estimates for US were 90% (95% CI: 76-98%) versus 95% (95% CI: 91-97%) for CT (p = 0.86). Summary specificity estimates for US were 90% (95% CI: 86-94%) versus 96% (95% CI: 90-100%) for CT (p = 0.04). Sensitivity for MRI was 98% and specificity varied between 70% and 78%. Sensitivity of contrast enema studies varied between 80% and 83%. CONCLUSION: In two-thirds of the patients, the diagnosis of ACD can be made based on clinical evaluation alone. In one-third of the patients, additional imaging is a necessity to establish the diagnosis. US and CT are comparable in diagnosing diverticulitis and superior to other modalities. CT has the advantage of higher specificity and the ability to identify alternative diagnoses. The role of MRI is not yet clear in diagnosing ACD. Contrast enema is considered an obsolete imaging technique to diagnose ACD based on lower sensitivity and specificity than US and CT. A step-up approach with CT performed after an inconclusive or negative US, seems a logical and safe approach for patients suspected of ACD.
BACKGROUND: The lack of pathognomonic findings and the chance of complicated disease have resulted in the widespread use of additional imaging to diagnose acute colonic diverticulitis (ACD). The added value of additional imaging in the diagnostic workup of patients suspected of ACD is not well defined. AIMS: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature of the accuracy of the clinical evaluation and diagnostic modalities for patients with suspected ACD, to come to an evidence-based approach to diagnose ACD. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that reported diagnostic accuracy of the clinical diagnosis and diagnostic modalities in patients with suspected diverticulitis were performed. Study quality was assessed with the STARD checklist. True-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative findings were extracted and pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity per diagnostic test were calculated, if applicable. RESULTS: The overall quality of the studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical diagnosis, contrast enema and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were moderate to poor and not suitable for meta-analysis. Sensitivity of the clinical diagnosis varied between 64% and 68%. Ultrasound (US) and computed tomography (CT) studies were eligible for meta-analysis. Summary sensitivity estimates for US were 90% (95% CI: 76-98%) versus 95% (95% CI: 91-97%) for CT (p = 0.86). Summary specificity estimates for US were 90% (95% CI: 86-94%) versus 96% (95% CI: 90-100%) for CT (p = 0.04). Sensitivity for MRI was 98% and specificity varied between 70% and 78%. Sensitivity of contrast enema studies varied between 80% and 83%. CONCLUSION: In two-thirds of the patients, the diagnosis of ACD can be made based on clinical evaluation alone. In one-third of the patients, additional imaging is a necessity to establish the diagnosis. US and CT are comparable in diagnosing diverticulitis and superior to other modalities. CT has the advantage of higher specificity and the ability to identify alternative diagnoses. The role of MRI is not yet clear in diagnosing ACD. Contrast enema is considered an obsolete imaging technique to diagnose ACD based on lower sensitivity and specificity than US and CT. A step-up approach with CT performed after an inconclusive or negative US, seems a logical and safe approach for patients suspected of ACD.
Authors: G A Binda; R Cuomo; A Laghi; R Nascimbeni; A Serventi; D Bellini; P Gervaz; B Annibale Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Daniël P V Lambrichts; Arianna Birindelli; Valeria Tonini; Roberto Cirocchi; Maurizio Cervellera; Johan F Lange; Willem A Bemelman; Salomone Di Saverio Journal: Inflamm Intest Dis Date: 2018-02-16
Authors: Massimo Sartelli; Federico Coccolini; Yoram Kluger; Ervis Agastra; Fikri M Abu-Zidan; Ashraf El Sayed Abbas; Luca Ansaloni; Abdulrashid Kayode Adesunkanmi; Boyko Atanasov; Goran Augustin; Miklosh Bala; Oussama Baraket; Suman Baral; Walter L Biffl; Marja A Boermeester; Marco Ceresoli; Elisabetta Cerutti; Osvaldo Chiara; Enrico Cicuttin; Massimo Chiarugi; Raul Coimbra; Elif Colak; Daniela Corsi; Francesco Cortese; Yunfeng Cui; Dimitris Damaskos; Nicola De' Angelis; Samir Delibegovic; Zaza Demetrashvili; Belinda De Simone; Stijn W de Jonge; Sameer Dhingra; Stefano Di Bella; Francesco Di Marzo; Salomone Di Saverio; Agron Dogjani; Therese M Duane; Mushira Abdulaziz Enani; Paola Fugazzola; Joseph M Galante; Mahir Gachabayov; Wagih Ghnnam; George Gkiokas; Carlos Augusto Gomes; Ewen A Griffiths; Timothy C Hardcastle; Andreas Hecker; Torsten Herzog; Syed Mohammad Umar Kabir; Aleksandar Karamarkovic; Vladimir Khokha; Peter K Kim; Jae Il Kim; Andrew W Kirkpatrick; Victor Kong; Renol M Koshy; Igor A Kryvoruchko; Kenji Inaba; Arda Isik; Katia Iskandar; Rao Ivatury; Francesco M Labricciosa; Yeong Yeh Lee; Ari Leppäniemi; Andrey Litvin; Davide Luppi; Gustavo M Machain; Ronald V Maier; Athanasios Marinis; Cristina Marmorale; Sanjay Marwah; Cristian Mesina; Ernest E Moore; Frederick A Moore; Ionut Negoi; Iyiade Olaoye; Carlos A Ordoñez; Mouaqit Ouadii; Andrew B Peitzman; Gennaro Perrone; Manos Pikoulis; Tadeja Pintar; Giuseppe Pipitone; Mauro Podda; Kemal Raşa; Julival Ribeiro; Gabriel Rodrigues; Ines Rubio-Perez; Ibrahima Sall; Norio Sato; Robert G Sawyer; Helmut Segovia Lohse; Gabriele Sganga; Vishal G Shelat; Ian Stephens; Michael Sugrue; Antonio Tarasconi; Joel Noutakdie Tochie; Matti Tolonen; Gia Tomadze; Jan Ulrych; Andras Vereczkei; Bruno Viaggi; Chiara Gurioli; Claudio Casella; Leonardo Pagani; Gian Luca Baiocchi; Fausto Catena Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2021-09-25 Impact factor: 5.469