Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30012791›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open2018

Publication status of completed registered studies in paediatric appendicitis: a cross-sectional analysis.

Thomas Breil, Michael Boettcher, Georg F Hoffmann, Markus Ries

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Time to publication for results of clinical trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Clinical Trials on Diabetic Nephropathy: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2019
    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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas BreilPediatric Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Center for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Michael BoettcherPediatric Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany.
Georg F HoffmannPediatric Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Center for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Markus RiesPediatric Neurology and Metabolic Medicine, Center for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5054-5741
Heidelberg University · DEUniversität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAppendicitis is considered the most frequent surgical emergency in children. While the management of paediatric appendicitis is evolving, the precise amount of unpublished completed trials, potentially introducing bias into meta-analyses, is unknown. Controversial issues include the appropriate choice of surgical procedures, criteria for diagnosis of appendicitis, the role of antibiotic treatment and pain management. Selective reporting may introduce bias into evidence-based clinical decision-making, and the current, precise extent of unpublished results in paediatric appendicitis is unknown. We therefore assessed the publication status of completed clinical studies involving children registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

designCross sectional analysis. STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology criteria were applied for design and analysis. SETTING AND

participantsClinicalTrials.gov was queried for completed studies which were matched to publications on ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed or Google Scholar. If no publication could be identified, principal investigators were contacted. INTERVENTIONS/EXPOSURE: Observational analysis. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of published and unpublished studies was calculated. Subgroup analysis included studies on surgical procedures, diagnosis, antibiotic treatment and pain management.

resultsOut of n=52 completed clinical studies involving children with appendicitis, n=33 (63%) were published and n=19 (37%) were unpublished. Eighty-three per cent (n=43/52) of clinical trials assessed the above-listed controversial issues. Diagnostic studies were most rigorously published (91% of trials reported), data on surgical procedures, antibiotic and pain management were less transparent. Sixty-six per cent of interventional studies and 60% of randomised studies were published. Median time-to-publication, for example, the delay between completion of the trial until public availability of the results was 24 (IQR 12-36), range 2-92 months.

conclusionDespite the importance of appendicitis in clinical practice for the paediatric surgeon, there remains scientific uncertainty due to unpublished clinical trial results with room for improvement in the future. These data are helpful in framing the shifting paradigms in paediatric appendicitis because it adds transparency to the debate.

Indexed as

AppendicitisPublishingRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBiasChildCross-Sectional StudiesHumansInformation DisseminationMeta-Analysis as Topicethics (see medical ethics)paediatric surgerypain managementquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID30012791
PMCPMC6082464
OpenAlexW2883240840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.