ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2018
Paediatric appendiceal ultrasound: a survey of Australasian sonographers' opinions on examination performance and sonographic criteria.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bayesian Approach to Predicting Acute Appendicitis Using Ultrasonographic and Clinical Variables in Children.Healthcare informatics research · 2019Article
- Paediatric appendiceal ultrasound: a survey of Australasian sonographers' opinions on examination performance and sonographic criteria.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe objectives of this study were to identify knowledge gaps and/or perceived limitations in the performance of paediatric appendiceal ultrasound by Australasian sonographers. We hypothesised that: sonographers' confidence in visualising the appendix in children was poor, particularly outside predominantly paediatric practice; workplace support for prolonging examinations to improve visualisation was limited; and the sonographic criteria applied in diagnosis did not reflect contemporary literature.
methodsA cross-sectional survey of Australasian sonographers regarding paediatric appendicitis was conducted using a mixed methods approach (quantitative and qualitative data). Text responses were analysed for key themes, and quantitative data analysed using chi-square, Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.
resultsOf the 124 respondents, 27 (21.8%) reported a visualisation rate of less than 10%. Workplace support for extending examination time was significantly related to a higher appendix visualisation rate (χ
conclusionsRespondents had a low opinion of their ability to confidently identify the appendix. Confidence was greater in those centres where extending scanning time was encouraged. Application of echogenic mesentery as the most significant secondary sonographic criterion is supported by recent studies. Opinions of diameter cut-offs varied, indicating potential for improved awareness of recent research.
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.