Limited evidence of abnormal intra‐colonic pressure profiles in diverticular disease – a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Abnormal colonic pressure profiles and high intraluminal pressures are postulated to contribute to the formation of sigmoid colon diverticulosis and the pathophysiology of diverticular disease. This study aimed to review evidence for abnormal colonic pressure profiles in diverticulosis. METHOD: All published studies investigating colonic pressure in patients with diverticulosis were searched in three databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus). No language restrictions were applied. Any manometry studies in which patients with diverticulosis were compared with controls were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) for case-control studies was used as a measure of risk of bias. A cut-off of five or more points on the NOS (fair quality in terms of risk of bias) was chosen for inclusion in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Ten studies (published 1962-2005) met the inclusion criteria. The studies followed a wide variety of protocols and all used low-resolution manometry (sensor spacing range 7.5-15 cm). Six studies compared intra-sigmoid pressure, with five of six showing higher pressure in diverticulosis vs controls, but only two reached statistical significance. A meta-analysis was not performed as only two studies were above the cut-off and these did not have comparable outcomes. CONCLUSION: This systematic review of manometry data shows that evidence for abnormal pressure in the sigmoid colon in patients with diverticulosis is weak. Existing studies utilized inconsistent methodology, showed heterogeneous results and are of limited quality. Higher quality studies using modern manometric techniques and standardized reporting methods are needed to clarify the role of colonic pressure in diverticulosis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".