Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24298858›Full record

ReviewAdvances in surgery2013

Improvement in the diagnosis of appendicitis.

Frederick Thurston Drake, David Reed Flum

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in surgery, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05070000 (Value of Ultrasound and Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis With Histopathology as Gold Standard - Retrospective Cohort Study.), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05070000 completednot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Value of Ultrasound and Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis With Histopathology as Gold Standard - Retrospective Cohort Study.

TypeobservationalSponsorKU LeuvenRan2016 to 2019Enrolled304ConditionsAppendicitis AcuteArmsRadiologic examination
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Case series: Treatment outcome of late presentation of acute appendicitis.International journal of surgery case reports · 2022
    Article
  9. Hospitalization Trends for Acute Appendicitis in Spain, 1998 to 2017.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Observational
  10. Article
  11. Xanthogranulomatous appendicitis: A comprehensive literature review.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. CT guided appendicectomy incision: A prospective case series.International journal of surgery case reports · 2017
    Article
  19. Article
  20. A novel reporting system to improve accuracy in appendicitis imaging.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2015
    Article
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

2 authors.

Frederick Thurston DrakeDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 356410, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. ftdrake@u.washington.edu
David Reed Flum

Funding

Renewal: Gastrointestinal Surgery Outcomes Research FellowshipT32DK070555 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI FLUM, DAVID R · 2010 to 2024
$3.6M
NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK070555
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our attempts to systematically improve accuracy in the evaluation of patients with suspected appendicitis are, in some ways, hindered by the fact that the condition is so frequently straightforward to diagnose. Careful history-taking and physical examination are reliable in most patients. However, establishing the diagnosis with these skills alone remains vulnerable to conditions that masquerade as acute appendicitis. A substantial body of clinical research over the last quarter-century has shown that improved accuracy is possible. Strategies for improvement include the use of diagnostic scoring systems, laboratory makers such as CRP, diagnostic laparoscopy, and advanced imaging modalities such as CT, MRI, and US. How clinicians use these strategies depends on many factors related to practice setting, the population served, and clinical goals. In children, for instance, the desire to limit exposure to ionizing radiation competes with the greater anatomic detail that a CT scan can provide; at the same time, many hospitals that treat children do not have the resources to maintain the sort of full-time, highly sophisticated abdominal US programs that achieve the highest rates of diagnostic accuracy in clinical studies. Trade-offs have to be made, but improvement is possible in almost all groups of patients: the clinical community should no longer settle for a 15% NA rate when 5% is clearly possible without adverse consequences. Many clinicians will be faced with the task of evaluating patients suspected of having acute appendicitis. A deliberate, proactive, and, ideally, benchmarked strategy for improving diagnosis should be the standard to which we hold ourselves and the promise we deliver to our patients.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseAppendectomyAppendicitisDiagnosis, DifferentialDiagnostic ImagingHumansLaparoscopyPhysical ExaminationReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID24298858
PMCPMC4214266

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.