ArticleUltrasound (Leeds, England)2017
Evaluating the risk of appendiceal perforation when using ultrasound as the initial diagnostic imaging modality in children with suspected appendicitis.
Article in Ultrasound (Leeds, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUltrasound scan has gained attention for diagnosing appendicitis due to its avoidance of ionizing radiation. However, studies show that ultrasound scan carries inferior sensitivity to computed tomography scan. A non-diagnostic ultrasound scan could increase the time to diagnosis and appendicectomy, particularly if follow-up computed tomography scan is needed. Some studies suggest that delaying appendicectomy increases the risk of perforation.
objectiveTo investigate the risk of appendiceal perforation when using ultrasound scan as the initial diagnostic imaging modality in children with suspected appendicitis.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 1411 charts of children ≤17 years old diagnosed with appendicitis at two urban academic medical centers. Patients who underwent ultrasound scan first were compared to those who underwent computed tomography scan first. In the sub-group analysis, patients who only received ultrasound scan were compared to those who received initial ultrasound scan followed by computed tomography scan. Main outcome measures were appendiceal perforation rate and time from triage to appendicectomy.
resultsIn 720 children eligible for analysis, there was no significant difference in perforation rate between those who had initial ultrasound scan and those who had initial computed tomography scan (7.3% vs. 8.9%, p = 0.44), nor in those who had ultrasound scan only and those who had initial ultrasound scan followed by computed tomography scan (8.0% vs. 5.6%, p = 0.42). Those patients who had ultrasound scan first had a shorter triage-to-incision time than those who had computed tomography scan first (9.2 (IQR: 5.9, 14.0) vs. 10.2 (IQR: 7.3, 14.3) hours, p = 0.03), whereas those who had ultrasound scan followed by computed tomography scan took longer than those who had ultrasound scan only (7.8 (IQR: 5.3, 11.6) vs. 15.1 (IQR: 10.6, 20.6), p < 0.001). Children < 12 years old receiving ultrasound scan first had lower perforation rate (p = 0.01) and shorter triage-to-incision time (p = 0.003).
conclusionChildren with suspected appendicitis receiving ultrasound scan as the initial diagnostic imaging modality do not have increased risk of perforation compared to those receiving computed tomography scan first. We recommend that children <12 years of age receive ultrasound scan first.
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.