Background: This systematic umbrella review aims to investigate and provide an analysis of guidelines regarding the treatment of diverticular abscesses. Material and methods: A systematic literature search was performed using the Cochrane Overviews of Reviews model and the ‘Clinical Practice Guidelines’; at the end of initial search, only 12 guidelines were included in this analysis. The quality of the guidelines was assessed by adopting the “Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II” (AGREE II). The comparative analysis of these guidelines has highlighted the presence of some differences regarding the recommendations on the treatment of diverticular abscesses. In particular, there are some controversies about the diameter of abscess to be used in order to decide between medical treatment and percutaneous drainage. Different guidelines propose different abscess diameter cutoffs, such as 3 cm, 4–5 cm, or 4 cm, for distinguishing between small and large abscesses. Conclusions: Currently, different scientific societies recommend that diverticular abscesses with diameters larger than 3 cm should be considered for percutaneous drainage whereas abscesses with diameters smaller than 3 cm could be appropriately treated by medical therapy with antibiotics; only a few guidelines suggest the use of percutaneous drainage for abscesses with a diameter greater than 4 cm. The differences among guidelines are the consequence of the different selection of scientific evidence. In conclusion, our evaluation has revealed the importance of seeking new scientific evidence with higher quality to either confirm, reinforce or potentially weaken the existing recommendations from different societies

Guidelines for the Treatment of Abdominal Abscesses in Acute Diverticulitis: An Umbrella Review

Piergiorgio Fedeli;
2023-01-01

Abstract

Background: This systematic umbrella review aims to investigate and provide an analysis of guidelines regarding the treatment of diverticular abscesses. Material and methods: A systematic literature search was performed using the Cochrane Overviews of Reviews model and the ‘Clinical Practice Guidelines’; at the end of initial search, only 12 guidelines were included in this analysis. The quality of the guidelines was assessed by adopting the “Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II” (AGREE II). The comparative analysis of these guidelines has highlighted the presence of some differences regarding the recommendations on the treatment of diverticular abscesses. In particular, there are some controversies about the diameter of abscess to be used in order to decide between medical treatment and percutaneous drainage. Different guidelines propose different abscess diameter cutoffs, such as 3 cm, 4–5 cm, or 4 cm, for distinguishing between small and large abscesses. Conclusions: Currently, different scientific societies recommend that diverticular abscesses with diameters larger than 3 cm should be considered for percutaneous drainage whereas abscesses with diameters smaller than 3 cm could be appropriately treated by medical therapy with antibiotics; only a few guidelines suggest the use of percutaneous drainage for abscesses with a diameter greater than 4 cm. The differences among guidelines are the consequence of the different selection of scientific evidence. In conclusion, our evaluation has revealed the importance of seeking new scientific evidence with higher quality to either confirm, reinforce or potentially weaken the existing recommendations from different societies
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Guidelines for the Treatment of Abdominal Abscesses in Acute.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale
Licenza: PUBBLICO - Creative Commons
Dimensione 281.71 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
281.71 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11581/480325
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact