Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29306977›Full record

ArticleEmergency radiology2018

Acute appendicitis in childhood: oral contrast does not improve CT diagnosis.

Crystal R Farrell, Adam D Bezinque, Jared M Tucker, Erica A Michiels, Bradford W Betz

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Acute Appendicitis in Childhood and Adulthood.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Crystal R FarrellGrand Rapids Medical Education Partners, Grand Rapids, MI, USA.
Adam D BezinqueMichigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine, East Lansing, MI, USA.
Jared M TuckerMichigan State University College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids, MI, USA.
Erica A MichielsEmergency Department, Helen DeVos Children's Hospital and Spectrum Health, Emergency Care Specialists, Grand Rapids, MI, USA.
Bradford W BetzMichigan State University College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids, MI, USA. brad.betz@helendevoschildrens.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4778-432X
Grand Rapids Community College · USMichigan State University · USSpectrum Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWe compared the diagnostic accuracy of CT performed without and with oral contrast for suspected appendicitis in children.

methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed abdomen/pelvis CT scans with IV contrast performed between 2011 and 2015 for suspected appendicitis. Oral contrast was used routinely before August 2013 and eliminated from the CT protocol thereafter. Diagnostic accuracy of CT was compared with operative/pathology reports, and included a 30-day follow-up period for non-surgical patients. For a secondary analysis, the oral contrast group was subdivided into "complete" (contrast extending into the cecum) or "partial" contrast. We also compared groups for CT turnaround time, the frequency of appendiceal perforation and abscess, and the potential influence of a prior appendix ultrasound.

resultsFive hundred fifty-eight patients were included: 51.6% (n = 288) without oral contrast and 48.4% (n = 270) with oral contrast (of which 52% (n = 140/270) had "complete" contrast). There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy between the oral contrast and non-contrast groups (p = 0.903), with sensitivity/specificity of 93.8% (95% CI 84.8-98.3)/98.5% (CI 95.8-99.7) and 94.6% (CI 84.9-98.9)/98.3% (CI 95.7-99.5), respectively. Similarly, there was no difference in accuracy when comparing only "complete" contrast vs. non-contrast groups (p = 0.755). CT turnaround time for the non-contrast group was significantly faster (43.8 ± 37.6 min), on average, than the oral contrast group (137.4 ± 47.5 min).

conclusionFor children evaluated by CT with IV contrast for suspected appendicitis, administering oral contrast increased wait time by > 90 min, did not reach the cecum in 48% of cases, and did not improve diagnostic accuracy. Oral contrast for pediatric CT appendicitis evaluation is not warranted.

Indexed as

Administration, OralAdolescentAppendicitisChildChild, PreschoolContrast MediaDiagnosis, DifferentialEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansInfantIopamidolMaleRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityTime FactorsContrast MediaIopamidolChildhood appendicitisComputed tomographyDiagnostic imagingOral contrastPediatric emergency medicine

Identifiers

PMID29306977
OpenAlexW2782073486

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.