ArticleUltrasound quarterly2015
Is there a need to standardize reporting terminology in appendicitis?
Article in Ultrasound quarterly, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic value of biochemical markers in prediction of perforation in acute appendicitis: a cross-sectional study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Article
- APENDIC-RADS: an ultrasound reporting system for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2024Article
- Improving ultrasound for appendicitis through standardized reporting of secondary signs.Journal of pediatric surgery · 2017Article
- Pediatric appendicitis: state of the art review.Pediatric surgery international · 2017Review
- Paediatric Acute Appendicitis: A Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy of Three Pre-operative Diagnostic Modalities.Journal of the West African College of SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
While computed tomography (CT) remains the most accurate and widely used modality for appendicitis imaging, ultrasound has developed its own niche role, especially in the pediatric population and in premenopausal women. Ultrasound is commonly used as the initial imaging test when available, with indeterminate or clinically equivocal cases proceeding to CT.To avoid the radiation and time and cost of CT, ultrasound needs to be improved. While previous studies have focused on improving the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound through better patient selection and technique, relatively little attention has been brought to the ultrasound report, which often serves as the sole mode of communication between the radiologist and the clinician.Standardization of reporting and terminology has been found to improve patient outcomes and management in breast imaging. A standardized report for appendicitis has the potential to decrease confusion and increase accuracy. A potential format could include a standardized list of the presence or absence of imaging findings associated with appendicitis, with a final summary or score indicating the likelihood of appendicitis being present. Aggregation of data over time through use of a common format could help guide radiologist recommendations based on which imaging findings are present. Overall, a standardized report could help increase the value of ultrasound, leading to improved radiologist-clinician communication, better patient outcomes, and decreased costs.
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.