ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2019
Clinical differentiation of acute appendicitis and right colonic diverticulitis: A case-control study.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Right-sided acute diverticulitis in the West: experience at a university hospital in Argentina.Annals of coloproctology · 2023Article
- Acute appendicitis-advances and controversies.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021Review
- Clinical Difference between Acute Appendicitis and Acute Right-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis.Emergency medicine international · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute right colonic diverticulitis (ARCD) is an important differential diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA) in Asian countries because of the unusually high prevalence of right colonic diverticula. Due to qualitative improvement and the high penetration rate of computed tomography (CT) scanning in Japan, differentiation of ARCD and AA mainly depends on this modality. But cost, limited availability, and concern for radiation exposure make CT scanning problematic. Differential findings of ARCD from AA are based on several small studies that used univariate comparisons from Korea and Taiwan. Previous studies on clinical and laboratory differences between AA and ARCD are limited.
aimTo determine clinical differences between AA and ARCD for differentiation of these two diagnoses by creating a logistic regression model.
methodsWe performed an exploratory single-center retrospective case-control study evaluating 369 Japanese patients (age ≥ 16 years), 236 (64.0%) with AA and 133 (36.0%) with ARCD, who were hospitalized between 2012 and 2016. Diagnoses were confirmed by CT images. We compared age, sex, onset-to-visit interval, epigastric/periumbilical pain, right lower quadrant (RLQ) pain, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, anorexia, medical history, body temperature, blood pressure, heart rate, RLQ tenderness, peritoneal signs, leukocyte count, and levels of serum creatinine, serum C-reactive protein (CRP), and serum alanine aminotrans-ferase. We subsequently performed logistic regression analysis for differentiating AA from ARCD based on the results of the univariate analyses.
resultsIn the AA and ARCD groups, median ages were 35.5 and 41.0 years, respectively (p=0.011); median onset-to-visit intervals were 1 [interquartile range (IQR): 0-1] and 2 (IQR: 1-3) days, respectively (
conclusionClinical findings can differentiate AA and ARCD before imaging studies; nausea/vomiting and anorexia suggest AA, and longer onset-to-visit interval, RLQ pain, previous diverticulitis, and CRP level > 3.0 mg/dL suggest ARCD.
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.