Scholarlink

<p>The review reported a 27.8% success rate for non-operative management in patients with distant free air and, on that basis, suggested that early surgery should be strongly considered. When we examined the published data, we were unable to reproduce this estimate. Recalculating from the information given in the review, the numerator appeared to include only studies that reported this outcome, whereas the denominator also included patients from studies in which it was not reported; on a like-for-like basis the success rate is closer to 73% than to the reported 27.8%. Several values in the distant-free-air column of Table&#xa0;5 of the review also correspond exactly to the complementary failure rates, which is compatible with a labelling or reporting error. These observations concern the distant-air subgroup specifically and require verification against the original data rather than establishing that the pooled analysis is incorrect. Given the clinical weight carried by this subgroup, clarification from the authors, and a correction if the discrepancies are confirmed, would be valuable.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Possible underestimation of non-operative management success in perforated diverticulitis with distant free air

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年8月3日

查看全文
  • Muzaffer Atlı

摘要

The review reported a 27.8% success rate for non-operative management in patients with distant free air and, on that basis, suggested that early surgery should be strongly considered. When we examined the published data, we were unable to reproduce this estimate. Recalculating from the information given in the review, the numerator appeared to include only studies that reported this outcome, whereas the denominator also included patients from studies in which it was not reported; on a like-for-like basis the success rate is closer to 73% than to the reported 27.8%. Several values in the distant-free-air column of Table 5 of the review also correspond exactly to the complementary failure rates, which is compatible with a labelling or reporting error. These observations concern the distant-air subgroup specifically and require verification against the original data rather than establishing that the pooled analysis is incorrect. Given the clinical weight carried by this subgroup, clarification from the authors, and a correction if the discrepancies are confirmed, would be valuable.