↓ Skip to main content

Mesalamine (5-ASA) for the prevention of recurrent diverticulitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Mesalamine (5-ASA) for the prevention of recurrent diverticulitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009839.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Flloyd Carter, Majd Alsayb, John K Marshall, Yuhong Yuan

Abstract

Diverticular disease is a common condition that increases in prevalence with age. Recent theories on the pathogenesis of diverticular inflammation have implicated chronic inflammation similar to that seen in ulcerative colitis. Mesalamine, or 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA), is a mainstay of therapy for individuals with ulcerative colitis. Accordingly, 5-ASA has been studied for prevention of recurrent diverticulitis. To evaluate the efficacy of mesalamine (5-ASA) for prevention of recurrent diverticulitis. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 8), in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE (from 1950 to 9 September 2017); Ovid Embase (from 1974 to 9 September 2017); and two clinical trials registries for ongoing trials - Clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform database (9 September 2017).We also searched proceedings from major gastrointestinal conferences - Digestive Disease Week (DDW), United European Gastroenterology Week (UEGW), and the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) Annual Scientific Meeting - from 2010 to September 2017. In addition, we scanned reference lists from eligible publications, and we contacted corresponding authors to ask about additional trials. We included randomised controlled clinical trials comparing the efficacy of 5-ASA versus placebo or another active drug for prevention of recurrent diverticulitis. We used standard methodological procedures as defined by Cochrane. Three review authors assessed eligibility for inclusion. Two review authors selected studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality independently. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for prevention of diverticulitis recurrence using an intention-to-treat principle and random-effects models. We assessed heterogeneity using criteria for Chi(2) (P < 0.10) and I(2) tests (> 50%). To explore sources of heterogeneity, we conducted a priori subgroup analyses. To assess the robustness of our results, we carried out sensitivity analyses using different summary statistics (RR vs odds ratio (OR)) and meta-analytical models (fixed-effect vs random-effects). We included in this review seven studies with a total of 1805 participants. We judged all seven studies to have unclear or high risk of bias. Investigators found no evidence of an effect when comparing 5-ASA versus control for prevention of recurrent diverticulitis (31.3% vs 29.8%; RR 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.09); very low quality of evidence).Five of the seven studies provided data on adverse events of 5-ASA therapy. The most commonly reported side effects were gastrointestinal symptoms (epigastric pain, nausea, and diarrhoea). No significant difference was seen between 5-ASA and control (67.8% vs 64.6%; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.06; P = 0.63; moderate quality of evidence), nor was significant heterogeneity observed (I(2) = 0%; P = 0.50). The effects of 5-ASA on recurrence of diverticulitis are uncertain owing to the small number of heterogenous trials included in this review. Rates of recurrent diverticulitis were similar among participants using 5-ASA and control participants. Effective medical strategies for prevention of recurrent diverticulitis are needed, and further randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials of rigorous design are warranted to specify the effects of 5-ASA (mesalamine) in the management of diverticulitis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Postgraduate 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Librarian 5 7%
Other 5 7%
Other 21 28%
Unknown 19 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 23 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 October 2018.
All research outputs
#3,935,600
of 13,594,271 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,905
of 10,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,494
of 276,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#180
of 261 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,594,271 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,652 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,406 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 261 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.