The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Primary anastomosis vs nonrestorative resection for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis: a prematurely terminated randomized controlled trial
Abstract
Aim This randomized controlled trial (RCT) was performed to test the hypothesis that adverse event rates following primary anastomosis (PRA) are not inferior to those following nonrestorative colon resection for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis. Method Patients admitted for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis were randomly assigned to PRA (left colon resection with PRA and loop ileostomy) or nonrestorative colon resection (left colon resection with end colostomy). The endpoint was adverse events defined as mortality and morbidity following PRA or nonrestorative colon resection and stoma reversal. The estimated sample size was 300 patients in each study arm (alpha 0.10; 90% power). Results During a 9‐year period, 90 patients were randomly assigned to undergo PRA or nonrestorative colon resection in 14 centres in eight countries. Thirty‐four PRA patients were comparable to 56 nonrestorative colon resection patients for age (P = 0.481), gender (P = 0.190), APACHE III (P = 0.281), Hinchey stage III vs IV (P = 0.394) and Mannheim Peritonitis Index (P = 0.145). There were no differences in operating time (P = 0.231), surgeries performed at night (P = 0.083), open vs laparoscopic approach (P = 0.419) and litres of peritoneal irrigation (P = 0.096). There was no significant difference in mortality (2.9 vs 10.7%; P = 0.247) and morbidity (35.3 vs 46.4%; P = 0.38) following PRA or nonrestorative colon resection. After a similar lag time (P = 0.43), 64.7% of PRA patients and 60% of nonrestorative colon resection patients underwent stoma reversal (P = 0.659). Adverse event rates following stoma reversal differed significantly after PRA and reversal of nonrestorative resection (4.5 vs 23.5%; P = 0.0589). Conclusion No conclusions may be drawn on preference of one treatment over another from this RCT because it was prematurely terminated following accrual of 15% of its sample size.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials: The CONSORT Statement
Begg, C. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030 · Cited by 3,127
Stratified Randomization for Clinical Trials
Kernan, W. N., Viscoli, C. M., Makuch, R. W., Brass, L. M., & Horwitz, R. I. (1999) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00138-3 · Cited by 627
Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials
Devereaux, P. J., Bhandari, M., Clarke, M., Montori, V. M., Cook, D. J., Yusuf, S., Sackett, D. L., Cinà, C. S., Walter, S. D., Haynes, B., et al. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7482.88 · Cited by 427
Cited by
Hall, J., Hardiman, K., Lee, S., Lightner, A., Stocchi, L., Paquette, I. M., Steele, S. R., Feingold, D. L., & Prepared on behalf of the Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (2020) · Diseases of the Colon & Rectum · doi:10.1097/dcr.0000000000001679 · Cited by 485
Vennix, S., Musters, G. D., Mulder, I. M., Swank, H. A., Consten, E. C., Belgers, E. H., van Geloven, A. A., Gerhards, M. F., Govaert, M. J., van Grevenstein, W. M., et al. (2015) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)61168-0 · Cited by 340
Metadata
- Authors
- Binda, G. A., Karas, J. R., Serventi, A., Sokmen, S., Amato, A., Hydo, L., Bergamaschi, R., & for the Study Group on Diverticulitis
- Venue
- Colorectal Disease
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-10-09
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1403-1410
- ISSN
- 1462-8910 (ISSN-L)
- 1463-1318
- OpenAlex
- W1943584069
- Cited by
- 169
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 7.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Primary anastomosis vs nonrestorative resection for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis: a prematurely terminated randomized controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.03117.x
- The paper
- Binda, G. A., Karas, J. R., Serventi, A., Sokmen, S., Amato, A., Hydo, L., Bergamaschi, R., & for the Study Group on Diverticulitis. (2012). Primary anastomosis vs nonrestorative resection for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis: a prematurely terminated randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Disease. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.03117.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.