Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26217548›Full record

ArticleSpringerPlus2015

The utility of peritoneal drains in patients with perforated appendicitis.

Martinus A Beek, Tim S Jansen, Jelle W Raats, Eric L L Twiss, Paul D Gobardhan, Eric J H van Rhede van der Kloot

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in SpringerPlus, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Martinus A BeekDepartment of Surgery, Amphia Hospital, Molengracht 21, 4818 CK Breda, The Netherlands.
Tim S JansenDepartment of Surgery, Amphia Hospital, Molengracht 21, 4818 CK Breda, The Netherlands.
Jelle W RaatsDepartment of Surgery, Amphia Hospital, Molengracht 21, 4818 CK Breda, The Netherlands.
Eric L L TwissDepartment of Surgery, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Paul D GobardhanDepartment of Surgery, Amphia Hospital, Molengracht 21, 4818 CK Breda, The Netherlands.
Eric J H van Rhede van der KlootDepartment of Surgery, Amphia Hospital, Molengracht 21, 4818 CK Breda, The Netherlands.
Amphia Ziekenhuis · NLAmsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntra-abdominal abscesses are the most common complication after perforated appendicitis and remain a significant problem ranging in incidence from 14 to 18%. Drainage following appendectomy is usually determined by whether the underlying appendicitis is simple or complicated and largely determined by the surgeons' belief, based on expertise or personal opinion. In this report we discuss the results of patients diagnosed with peritoneal drainage, treated with or without a peritoneal drain. PATIENTS AND

methodsA retrospective study of patients diagnosed with perforated appendicitis having surgery was performed. Patients diagnosed with perforated appendicitis treated with a peritoneal drain and patients treated without a peritoneal drain. Both groups were evaluated in terms of complications: intra-abdominal abscess, re-intervention, readmission and duration of hospital stay.

results199 patients diagnosed with perforated appendicitis underwent appendectomy. 120 patients were treated without a peritoneal drain and 79 patients with a peritoneal drain. Thirty-one (26%) patients from the group without a peritoneal drain had a re-intervention compared to 9 (11%) in the group with a peritoneal drain (p = 0.013). Overall complications and readmission were also significantly lower in patients treated with a peritoneal drain.

conclusionA peritoneal drain seems to reduce overall complication rate, re-intervention rate and readmission rate in patients treated with perforated appendicitis.

Indexed as

ComplicationsPerforated appendicitisPeritoneal drainPeritoneal drainage

Identifiers

PMID26217548
PMCPMC4512985
OpenAlexW2110709029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.