Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21528073›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2011

Unusual histopathological findings in appendectomy specimens: a retrospective analysis and literature review.

Sami Akbulut, Mahmut Tas, Nilgun Sogutcu, Zulfu Arikanoglu, Murat Basbug, Abdullah Ulku, Heybet Semur, Yusuf Yagmur

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

71 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 177 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sami AkbulutDepartment of Surgery, Diyarbakir Education and Research Hospital, 21400, Diyarbakir, Turkey. akbulutsami@gmail.com
Mahmut Tas
Nilgun Sogutcu
Zulfu Arikanoglu
Murat Basbug
Abdullah Ulku
Heybet Semur
Yusuf Yagmur
Diyarbakır Askeri Hastanesi · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo document unusual findings in appendectomy specimens.

methodsThe clinicopathological data of 5262 patients who underwent appendectomies for presumed acute appendicitis from January 2006 to October 2010 were reviewed retrospectively. Appendectomies performed as incidental procedures during some other operation were excluded. We focused on 54 patients who had unusual findings in their appendectomy specimens. We conducted a literature review via the PubMed and Google Scholar databases of English language studies published between 2000 and 2010 on unusual findings in appendectomy specimens.

resultsUnusual findings were determined in 54 (1%) cases by histopathology. Thirty were male and 24 were female with ages ranging from 15 to 84 years (median, 32.2 ± 15.1 years). Final pathology revealed 37 cases of enterobiasis, five cases of carcinoids, four mucinous cystadenomas, two eosinophilic infiltrations, two mucoceles, two tuberculosis, one goblet-cell carcinoid, and one neurogenic hyperplasia. While 52 patients underwent a standard appendectomy, two patients who were diagnosed with tuberculous appendicitis underwent a right hemicolectomy. All tumors were located at the distal part of the appendix with a mean diameter of 6.8 mm (range, 4-10 mm). All patients with tumors were alive and disease-free during a mean follow-up of 17.8 mo. A review of 1366 cases reported in the English literature is also discussed.

conclusionAlthough unusual pathological findings are seldom seen during an appendectomy, all appendectomy specimens should be sent for routine histopathological examination.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAppendectomyAppendicitisAppendixEnterobiasisFemaleHumansIntestinal NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTurkeyYoung AdultAppendicitisCarcinoidEnterobius vermicularisGoblet cell carcinoidMucoceleUnusual findings

Identifiers

PMID21528073
PMCPMC3082748
OpenAlexW1981225953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.