ArticleSurgical endoscopy2012
Trend, variability, and outcome of open vs. laparoscopic appendectomy based on a large administrative database.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Appendectomy in Patients with Morbid Obesity: Laparoscopic versus Conventional Technique.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020Article
- Surgical site infection after laparoscopic and open appendectomy: a multicenter large consecutive cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Article
- Underweight body mass index as a predictive factor for surgical site infections after laparoscopic appendectomy.Yonsei medical journal · 2014Article
- Acute appendicitis: position paper, WSES, 2013.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2014Article
- Evidence-based laparoscopic appendectomy practice requires national database studies.Surgical endoscopy · 2013Article
- Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy is comparable to conventional laparoscopic and laparotomic appendectomy: our single center single surgeon experience.Il Giornale di chirurgiaArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to ascertain the variability and 9-year trends in the use of laparoscopic surgery for appendicitis using data from a large administrative database, to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of laparoscopic (LA) and open appendectomy, and to ascertain whether different choices of surgical approach stem from evidence-based recommendations. This was a retrospective cohort study based on administrative data collected from 2000 to 2008 in the Veneto Region (northeastern Italy). Funnel plots were used to display variability between local health units (LHUs). A total of 38,314 appendectomies were performed from 2000 to 2008 in the Veneto Region, 53% of them in males. The laparoscopic procedure was used more often for females than for males of fertile age. There was a significant rising linear trend in the use of LA, with a higher increment among females. The overall regional standardized appendectomy rate was 82.9/10,000. The mean proportion of LAs (27.3%) ranged from 2.8 to 59.4% at different LHUs, and there was no relationship between the volume of procedures undertaken and the proportion of LAs. The proportion of LAs performed in females of reproductive age also varied considerably, on no apparent evidence-based grounds. The analysis of aggregate clinical data is a powerful tool for supporting regional health management units in efforts to improve the quality of medical care and assess the appropriateness of therapeutic or diagnostic approaches in the light of practical guidelines. Variability in the treatment of a given disease that lacks any evidence-based justification remains an important issue in national health systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.