Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21735437›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2011

Single incision versus conventional multi-incision appendicectomy for suspected appendicitis.

Haroon Rehman, Ahsan M Rao, Irfan Ahmed

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for diagnosis of acute appendicitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmon or abscess.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Saline solution vs. stabilized isotonic sodium hypochlorite lavage in complicated appendicitis: a comparative study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Is laparoscopic appendectomy safe when performed in a low volume setting?International journal of biomedical science : IJBS · 2014
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Haroon RehmanGeneral Surgery, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, AB25 2ZD.
Ahsan M Rao
Irfan Ahmed
Aberdeen Royal Infirmary · GBNHS Grampian · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAppendicectomy is a well established surgical procedure used in the management of acute appendicitis.  The operation can be performed with minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic) or as an open procedure. A recent development in appendicectomy has been the introduction of less invasive single incision laparoscopic surgery, using a single multi-luminal port or multiple mono-luminal ports, through a single skin incision. There are yet unanswered questions regarding the efficacy of this new and novel technique including: patient benefit and satisfaction, complications, long-term outcomes, and survival.

objectivesThe aim of this review is to perform meta-analysis using data from available trials comparing single incision with conventional multi-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendicitis, in order to ascertain any differences in outcome. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the electronic databases including MEDLINE/PubMed (from 1980 to December 2010), EMBASE/Ovid (from 1980 to December 2010) and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 11) with pre-specified terms. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings and ongoing trial databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of patients with appendicitis, or symptoms of appendicitis, undergoing laparoscopic appendicectomy, in which at least one arm involves single incision procedures and another multi-incision procedures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: There were no RCTs or prospectively controlled trials found that met the inclusion criteria. MAIN

resultsThree authors performed study selection independently.No studies that met the inclusion criteria of this review were identified. Current evidence exists only the form of case-series.This review has been authored as 'empty' pending the results of 5 ongoing trials. AUTHORS'

conclusionsNo RCTs comparing single incision laparoscopic appendectomy with multi-incision surgery could be identified. No definitive conclusions can be made at this time. Well designed prospective RCTs are required in order to evaluate benefit or harm from laparoscopic surgical approaches for appendicectomy. Until appropriate data has been reported, the institutional polices of healthcare providers must be based on the clinical judgement of experts in the field.

Indexed as

AppendectomyAppendicitisHumans

Identifiers

PMID21735437
OpenAlexW2156069117

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.