Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28799135›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of surgery2018

Appendiceal Duplication: A Comprehensive Review of Published Cases and Clinical Recommendations.

H Nageswaran, U Khan, F Hill, A Maw

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Case report: Acute appendicitis in appendix duplication.International journal of surgery case reports · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Double appendixes: A rare case report.Clinical case reports · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

H NageswaranGlan Clwyd Hospital, Rhuddlan Road, Bodelwyddan, Rhyl, LL18 5UJ, UK. hnageswaran@gmail.com.
U KhanMorriston General Hospital, Heol Maes Eglwys, Morriston, Swansea, SA6 6NL, UK.
F HillPrincess of Wales Hospital, Coity Road, Bridgend, CF31 1RQ, UK.
A MawGlan Clwyd Hospital, Rhuddlan Road, Bodelwyddan, Rhyl, LL18 5UJ, UK.
Glan Clwyd Hospital · GBMorriston Hospital · GBPrincess of Wales Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuplex appendix is very rare (incidence 0.004%) but has clinical relevance given the frequency of appendicectomies performed. Failure to recognise duplication can result in failure of treatment and medico-legal consequences. A review of published cases was undertaken to identify factors that may help in managing this rare condition.

methodsAll English and non-English publications were identified in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases. Patient demographics, intraoperative findings, anatomical details and histopathology were analysed.

resultsA total of 141 cases were identified [male/female ratio 1.4:1, median age 20 years (range foetus to 69 years)]. Duplication of the appendix ranges from branching of the appendix trunk to a fully matured appendix located elsewhere along the colon. Most can be categorised by the Cave-Wallbridge classification. There were 22 Type A, 8 Type B1, 46 Type B2 and 10 Type C cases (Cave-Wallbridge). There were six cases of horseshoe and two cases of triple appendix. Six reports gave anatomical descriptions that could not be classified by Cave-Wallbridge categories and in 11 cases there were no anatomical descriptions.

conclusionsAn anteriorly placed appendix, away from the convergence of the taenia, or a normal appendix in the presence of convincing clinical or radiological signs of appendicitis should instigate a careful examination of the caecal pole and possible exploration of the retrocaecal space for appendiceal duplication. If the patient had previous surgery for congenital abnormalities, Type B1 or Type C duplication should be considered.

Indexed as

AppendectomyAppendicitisAppendixCongenital AbnormalitiesHumans

Identifiers

PMID28799135
OpenAlexW2742884997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.