Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15495014›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis.

S Sauerland, R Lefering, E A M Neugebauer

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03067740 (Intraperitoneal Dexmedetomidine as an Adjuvant to Bupivacaine for Management of Pain in Children Undergoing Laparoscopic Appendicectomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 124 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
124citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03067740 phase4unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Intraperitoneal Dexmedetomidine as an Adjuvant to Bupivacaine for Management of Pain in Children Undergoing Laparoscopic Appendicectomy: A Prospective Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorZagazig UniversityRan2016 to 2017Enrolled56ConditionsPain, PostoperativeArmsBupivacaine, Dexmedetomidine
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

124 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 304 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Guideline
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

64 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

S SauerlandBiochemical & Experimental Division, Medical Faculty, University of Cologne, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, Cologne, Germany, 51109.
R Lefering
E A M Neugebauer
University of Cologne · DEWitten/Herdecke University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic surgery for acute appendicitis has been proposed to have advantages over conventional surgery.

objectivesTo compare the diagnostic and therapeutic effects of laparoscopic and conventional 'open' surgery. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, SciSearch, the congress proceedings of endoscopic surgical societies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized clinical trials comparing laparoscopic (LA) versus open appendectomy (OA) in adults or children. Studies comparing immediate OA versus diagnostic laparoscopy (followed by LA or OA if necessary) were separately identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality. Missing information or data was requested from the authors. We used odds ratios (OR), relative risks (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for analysis. MAIN

resultsWe included 54 studies, of which 45 compared LA (with or without diagnostic laparoscopy) vs. OA in adults. Wound infections were less likely after LA than after OA (OR 0.45; CI 0.35 to 0.58), but the incidence of intraabdominal abscesses was increased (OR 2.48; CI 1.45 to 4.21). The duration of surgery was 12 minutes (CI 7 to 16) longer for LA. Pain on day 1 after surgery was reduced after LA by 9 mm (CI 5 to 13 mm) on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. Hospital stay was shortened by 1.1 day (CI 0.6 to 1.5). Return to normal activity, work, and sport occurred earlier after LA than after OA. While the operation costs of LA were significantly higher, the costs outside hospital were reduced. Five studies on children were included, but the result do not seem to be much different when compared to adults. Diagnostic laparoscopy reduced the risk of a negative appendectomy, but this effect was stronger in fertile women (RR 0.20; CI 0.11 to 0.34) as compared to unselected adults (RR 0.37; CI 0.13 to 1.01). REVIEWERS'

conclusionsIn those clinical settings where surgical expertise and equipment are available and affordable, diagnostic laparoscopy and LA (either in combination or separately) seem to have various advantages over OA. Some of the clinical effects of LA, however, are small and of limited clinical relevance. In spite of the mediocre quality of the available research data, we would generally recommend to use laparoscopy and LA in patients with suspected appendicitis unless laparoscopy itself is contraindicated or not feasible. Especially young female, obese, and employed patients seem to benefit from LA.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyAcute DiseaseAppendicitisHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID15495014
OpenAlexW4247454167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.