ArticleArchives of medical science : AMS2020
Acute mesenteric lymphadenitis in children: findings related to differential diagnosis and hospitalization.
Article in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic retrograde appendiceal irrigation for children with recurrent abdominal pain and appendiceal fecaliths: a retrospective cohort study.World journal of pediatric surgery · 2026Article
- Value of conventional ultrasound and shear‑wave elastography in the assessment of mesenteric lymphadenitis in a paediatric population.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2024Article
- Clinical applications of superb microvascular imaging and virtual touch imaging quantification in pediatric mesenteric lymphadenitis diagnosis: A promising pathway to enhanced precision.Clinical hemorheology and microcirculation · 2024Article
- Rare appendiceal escapades in childhood: the Grande experience!Journal of surgical case reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDiagnostic discrimination between acute appendicitis (AA) and mesenteric lymphadenitis (AML) may require more diagnostic tests or great skill after excluding other diagnoses. This study aimed to make a differential diagnosis between AA and AML patients with previous and new parameters and to examine which parameters should be taken into account regarding whether the AML patient should be hospitalized or discharged. MATERIAL AND
methodsOne hundred and twenty-three AML and 134 AA patients, randomly selected, were included in the study. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data of all subjects were analyzed. Ultrasonographic and rarely computed tomography examinations evaluating for the enlarged lymph nodes with the shortest diameter in the right lower quadrant of the AML patients were performed. Also, the erect abdominal radiographs (EAR) of AML and AA patients were evaluated.
resultsWhile there was no statistically significant difference in age or gender, C-reactive protein, white blood cell count, monocyte percentage as well as symptoms between the AA and AML groups (
conclusionsBased on the results with ROC curve analysis, we propose to take into account the L/M ratio and the EAR from the parameters in the differential diagnosis between AA and AML in addition to previously reported parameters. Also, we recommend that the same features may be used to decide whether AML patients under observation are hospitalized or not.
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.