Patient and Physician Preferences for Antibiotics in Acute Uncomplicated Diverticulitis: A Delphi Consensus Process to Generate Noninferiority Margins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the existing evidence, the omission of antibiotics in the management of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis has not gained widespread acceptance. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to incorporate the input of both patients and physicians on the omission of antibiotics in uncomplicated diverticulitis to generate noninferiority margins for 3 outcomes. DESIGN: This was a mixed-methods study, including in-person interviews with patients and a Delphi process with physicians. SETTINGS: North American patients and physicians participated. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy, 40% of whom had a previous history of diverticulitis, were selected. INTERVENTIONS: Informational video (for patients) and evidence summaries (for physicians) regarding antibiotics in diverticulitis were reviewed. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Noninferiority margins were generated for time to reach full recovery, persistent diverticulitis, and progression to complicated diverticulitis in the context of a nonantibiotic strategy. Consensus was defined as an interquartile range <2.5. RESULTS: Fifty patients participated in this study. To avoid antibiotics, patients were willing to accept up to 5.0 (3.0-7.0) days longer to reach full recovery, up to an absolute increase of 4.0% (4.0-6.0) in the risk of developing persistent diverticulitis, and up to an absolute increase of 2.0% (0-3.8) in the risk of progressing to complicated diverticulitis. A total of 55 physicians participated in the Delphi (round 1 response rate = 94.8%; round 2 response rate = 100%). Consensus noninferiority margins were generated for persistent diverticulitis (4.0%, 4.0-5.0) and progression to complicated diverticulitis (3.0%, 2.0-3.0), but could not be generated for time to reach full recovery (5.0 days, 3.5-7.0). LIMITATIONS: Patients were recruited from a single institution, and Delphi participants were invited and not randomly selected. CONCLUSION: Noninferiority margins were generated for 3 important outcomes after the treatment of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis in the context of a nonantibiotic strategy.
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 | 0.245 | 0.243 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".