An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews on the Utility of Antibiotics in Patients With Acute Uncomplicated Diverticulitis.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Sameh H Emile, Michal Perets, Noam Kahana, Anjelli Wignakumar, Marylise Boutros
{"title":"An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews on the Utility of Antibiotics in Patients With Acute Uncomplicated Diverticulitis.","authors":"Sameh H Emile, Michal Perets, Noam Kahana, Anjelli Wignakumar, Marylise Boutros","doi":"10.1097/MCG.0000000000002445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The role of antibiotics in acute uncomplicated diverticulitis (AUD) has been debated, as recent trials suggest antibiotics may not add benefit in mild AUD. Conclusions from systematic reviews on this subject have been inconsistent. This umbrella review aimed to synthesize and critically appraise the evidence from systematic reviews regarding the role of antibiotics in AUD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a PRISMA-compliant systematic review on the outcome of nonantibiotic conservative management compared to standard antibiotic therapy for AUD. PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched through October 2025 for systematic reviews with meta-analyses. The main outcome measures were disease recurrence, complications, need for surgery, mortality, readmission, and hospital stay.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen systematic reviews with a median of 2487 patients per review were included. All reviews, except one, reported a similar likelihood of recurrence of AD between the 2 groups. The odds ratio of recurrence varied across the reviews from 0.66 to 1.01, and the risk ratio varied from 0.82 to 1.02. The likelihood of progression to complicated diverticulitis, perforation, abscess, mortality, and need for any surgical intervention was also similar between the 2 groups. Six reviews reported no difference in readmission, but one found higher readmission with antibiotics, and conversely another reported lower readmission with antibiotics. Five of 7 reviews reported shorter hospital stays with nonantibiotic management, with mean differences ranging across reviews from -1.18 to 0.19 days. Most reviews were of low or critically low quality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>On the basis of low-certainty evidence, omitting antibiotics in AUD appears safe, with similar clinical outcomes to standard antibiotic therapy and a possible shorter hospital stay. High-quality trials remain needed to strengthen these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":15457,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000002445","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The role of antibiotics in acute uncomplicated diverticulitis (AUD) has been debated, as recent trials suggest antibiotics may not add benefit in mild AUD. Conclusions from systematic reviews on this subject have been inconsistent. This umbrella review aimed to synthesize and critically appraise the evidence from systematic reviews regarding the role of antibiotics in AUD.

Methods: This was a PRISMA-compliant systematic review on the outcome of nonantibiotic conservative management compared to standard antibiotic therapy for AUD. PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched through October 2025 for systematic reviews with meta-analyses. The main outcome measures were disease recurrence, complications, need for surgery, mortality, readmission, and hospital stay.

Results: Fourteen systematic reviews with a median of 2487 patients per review were included. All reviews, except one, reported a similar likelihood of recurrence of AD between the 2 groups. The odds ratio of recurrence varied across the reviews from 0.66 to 1.01, and the risk ratio varied from 0.82 to 1.02. The likelihood of progression to complicated diverticulitis, perforation, abscess, mortality, and need for any surgical intervention was also similar between the 2 groups. Six reviews reported no difference in readmission, but one found higher readmission with antibiotics, and conversely another reported lower readmission with antibiotics. Five of 7 reviews reported shorter hospital stays with nonantibiotic management, with mean differences ranging across reviews from -1.18 to 0.19 days. Most reviews were of low or critically low quality.

Conclusions: On the basis of low-certainty evidence, omitting antibiotics in AUD appears safe, with similar clinical outcomes to standard antibiotic therapy and a possible shorter hospital stay. High-quality trials remain needed to strengthen these findings.

急性非并发症憩室炎患者抗生素应用的系统综述综述。
背景:抗生素在急性非复杂性憩室炎(AUD)中的作用一直存在争议,因为最近的试验表明抗生素可能不会增加轻度AUD的益处。关于这一主题的系统综述得出的结论并不一致。本综述旨在综合并批判性地评价来自系统综述的关于抗生素在AUD中的作用的证据。方法:这是一项符合prisma标准的系统评价,比较非抗生素保守治疗与标准抗生素治疗AUD的结果。检索PubMed、Scopus、Cochrane Library和b谷歌Scholar,检索截止到2025年10月的meta分析系统评价。主要结局指标为疾病复发、并发症、手术需要、死亡率、再入院和住院时间。结果:纳入14项系统评价,每项评价中位数为2487例患者。除一篇综述外,所有综述均报道两组之间AD复发的可能性相似。回顾中复发的优势比为0.66 - 1.01,风险比为0.82 - 1.02。进展为复杂性憩室炎、穿孔、脓肿、死亡率和需要任何手术干预的可能性在两组之间也相似。六篇综述报告再入院率无差异,但一篇综述发现抗生素治疗后再入院率较高,另一篇则相反,报告抗生素治疗后再入院率较低。7篇综述中有5篇报告使用非抗生素治疗的住院时间较短,平均差异从-1.18天到0.19天不等。大多数评论的质量都很低或非常低。结论:在低确定性证据的基础上,AUD患者不使用抗生素似乎是安全的,其临床结果与标准抗生素治疗相似,并且可能缩短住院时间。仍需要高质量的试验来加强这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of clinical gastroenterology
Journal of clinical gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
339
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology gathers the world''s latest, most relevant clinical studies and reviews, case reports, and technical expertise in a single source. Regular features include cutting-edge, peer-reviewed articles and clinical reviews that put the latest research and development into the context of your practice. Also included are biographies, focused organ reviews, practice management, and therapeutic recommendations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书