Trial reportPediatric surgery international2018
Home intravenous versus oral antibiotics following appendectomy for perforated appendicitis in children: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Pediatric surgery international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of ertapenem for treatment of infections in children: An evidence mapping and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Pooled it
- Intravenous versus intravenous/oral antibiotics for perforated appendicitis in pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pediatrics · 2019Pooled it
- Pediatric outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy: an important option for pediatric hospitals in Germany.GMS hygiene and infection control · 2026Article
- Delivery of Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (OPAT) in an Ever-Changing National Health Service (UK): Benefits, Barriers, and Opportunities.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Exploring oral antibiotics for antibiotic stewardship in nonoperative management of complicated appendicitis in pediatric patients.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025Article
- Perforated Appendicitis in Children: Management, Microbiology, and Antibiotic Stewardship.Paediatric drugs · 2024Review
- Pediatric perforated appendicitis diagnosis based on the C-reactive protein/prealbumin ratio.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Management and Microbiology of Perforated Appendicitis in Pediatric Patients: A 5-Year Retrospective Study.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2021Article
- Opinion-Based Recommendations: Beware the Tyranny of Experts.Open forum infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis: 2020 update of the WSES Jerusalem guidelines.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2020Review
- Updated good practice recommendations for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) in adults and children in the UK.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2019Review
- Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy in Children.Current infectious disease reports · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the effect of home intravenous (IV) versus oral antibiotic therapy on complication rates and resource utilization following appendectomy for perforated appendicitis.
methodsThis was a randomized controlled trial of patients aged 4-17 with surgically treated perforated appendicitis from January 2011 to November 2013. Perforation was defined intraoperatively and divided into three grades: I-contained perforation, II-localized contamination to right gutter/pelvis, and III-diffuse contamination. Patients were randomized to complete a ten-day course of home antibiotic therapy with either IV ertapenem or oral amoxicillin-clavulanate. Thirty-day postoperative complication rates including abscess, readmission, wound infection, and charges were compared.
resultsEighty-two patients were enrolled. Forty four (54%) were randomized to the IV group and 38 (46%) to the oral group. IV patients were older (12.3 ± 3.6 versus 10.1 ± 3.6, p < 0.05) with higher BMI (20.9 ± 5.8 versus 17.9 ± 3.5, p < 0.05). There were no differences in gender, comorbidities, or perforation grade (I-20.4% vs. 26.3%, II-36.4% vs. 34.2%, III-43.2% vs. 39.5%, all p > 0.05). Comparing IV to oral, there was no difference in length of stay (4.4 ± 1.5 versus 4.4 ± 2.0 days, p > 0.05), postoperative abscess rate (11.6% vs. 8.1%, p > 0.05), or readmission rate (14.0% vs. 16.2%, p > 0.05). Hospital and outpatient charges were higher in the IV group (p < 0.0001).
conclusionOral antibiotics had equivalent outcomes and incurred fewer charges than IV antibiotics following appendectomy for perforated appendicitis.
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.