Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29637158›Full record

ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2017

Development of a core outcome set to determine the overall treatment success of acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children: a study protocol.

Frances C Sherratt, Simon Eaton, Erin Walker, Lucy Beasant, Jane M Blazeby, Bridget Young, Esther Crawley, Wendy W Wood, Nigel J Hall

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Development of a gastroschisis core outcome set.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2019
    Article
  12. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Frances C SherrattDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Institute of Psychology, Health & Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4147-9305
Simon EatonDevelopmental Biology and Cancer Programme, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0892-9204
Erin WalkerGreat Ormond Street Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, London, UK.
Lucy BeasantCentre for Child and Adolescent Health, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jane M BlazebyCentre for Surgical Research, School of Social & Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Bridget YoungDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Institute of Psychology, Health & Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Esther CrawleyCentre for Child and Adolescent Health, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Wendy W WoodResearch Design Services South Central, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Nigel J HallUniversity Surgery Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8570-9374
University of Bristol · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBGreat Ormond Street Hospital · GBGreat Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health HTA/14/192/90Medical Research Council MR/K025635/1Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn recent years, there has been growing interest in alternatives to appendicectomy. In particular, non-operative treatment of appendicitis, with antibiotics alone, has been proposed as a potential treatment. A small number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults and, more recently, children suggest that antibiotic treatment may be a valid alternative to appendicectomy. However, there is currently insufficient data to justify its widespread use. Prior to performing further efficacy studies of the treatment of appendicitis in children, it is imperative to identify the most relevant outcome measures for inclusion in the design of comparative studies. This is of particular importance when evaluating a novel treatment approach since the outcomes of importance may differ from those commonly reported with traditional therapies.A review of the relevant literature and electronic resources failed to identify a core outcome set (COS) for children with appendicitis. We aim to define a COS for the measurement of treatment interventions in children (<18 years) with acute appendicitis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This project will entail: (1) a systematic review to identify previously reported acute uncomplicated appendicitis treatment outcomes; (2) assembly of stakeholder panels (paediatric and adult surgeons, patients and parents); (3) a three-stage Delphi process; and (4) a final consensus meeting to complete the COS. ETHICS AND REGISTRATION: COS development is part of CONservative TReatment of Appendicitis in Children - a randomised controlled Trial (Feasibility) (CONTRACT) study, for which full ethical approval for CONTRACT has been granted. The COS development study is registered with the COMET Initiative in May 2017 (http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/987).

Indexed as

antibioticsappendectomyappendicectomyappendicitischildrenconsensus meetingcore outcomescore outcome setDelphipaediatric

Identifiers

PMID29637158
PMCPMC5862231
OpenAlexW2744590166

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.