Trial reportPediatric surgery international2013
Reduced use of computed tomography in patients treated with interval appendectomy after implementing a protocol from a prospective, randomized trial.
Trial report in Pediatric surgery international, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic imaging for acute appendicitis: interfacility differences in practice patterns.Pediatric surgery international · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2009, we instituted a protocol to standardize care for patients undergoing interval appendectomy based on results from a prospective trial that demonstrated a reduction in the mean number of computed tomography (CT) scans performed. The goal of this study was to determine if our current practice now resulted in fewer CT scans as a result of this trial.
methodsA retrospective review of all patients undergoing interval appendectomy for perforated appendicitis from March 2009 to March 2011 was performed. Demographics and outcomes were compared to previously collected data from a retrospective study prior to institution of the protocol and to the prospective trial.
resultsDuring the study period, 45 patients underwent interval appendectomy. There were no differences in demographics among the three studies. Similar numbers of patients underwent aspiration or percutaneous drainage. There continues to be a significant reduction in the number of CT scans (3.5 ± 2.0 vs. 2.1 ± 1.3, P = 0.0001) and health care visits (7.6 ± 2.8 vs. 4.5 ± 1.4, P = 0.0001) when comparing management prior to the prospective trial to management since its completion.
conclusionA protocol for management of patients undergoing interval appendectomy care results in fewer health care visits and CT scans.
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.