ArticleBMC emergency medicine2013
Appendicitis: what does really make the difference between private and public hospitals?
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epidemiology of appendicitis in Ecuador, 2004-2024: a national time-series analysis of incidence, trends, geographic variation, and case-fatality rates.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Article
- Factors Contributing to Delays to Accessing Appendectomy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review.World journal of surgery · 2023Article
- Effects of a reimbursement change and travel times on the delivery of private and public radiology services in Norway: a register-based longitudinal study of Norwegian claims data.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAppendicitis is one of the most common surgical emergencies and is also a time-sensitive condition. Delays in treatment increase the risk of appendiceal perforation (AP), and thus AP rates have been used as a proxy to measure access to surgical care. It is very well known that in Brazil there are big differences between the public and private healthcare systems. Those differences can reflect in the treatment of what are considered simple cases, like appendicitis. As far as we know, it has no known links to behavioral or social risk factors, and has only one treatment option--appendectomy. The purpose of this study was to compare treatment received by Brazilian people, both by those who depend on the public and private healthcare system, and how it affects their outcome.
methodsData was collected from the records of all patients submitted to appendectomy, in a public and in a private Sao Paulo city's hospitals, during January to April of 2010.
resultsPatients admitted by the public hospital present symptoms for a longer period of time than those treated by the private one. It took a significantly higher amount of time for the patients from the public hospital undergo surgery, and their length of stay is also significantly higher.
conclusionsAppendicitis in a public scenario is associated with increased time from onset of symptoms to operative intervention and the main reason is the delayed presentation. Clinical polices for abdominal pain should be instituted by the public healthcare system, based on population education, healthcare professionals training and establishment of strategies that can speed the diagnosis process up.
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.