ArticleCureus2020
A Correlation of Blood Panel Results and Histologically Confirmed Appendicitis.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Varying negative appendectomy rates after laparoscopic appendectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Role of serum levels of tumour necrosis factor-like weak inducer of apoptosis (TWEAK) in predicting severity of acute appendicitis.Turkish journal of surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Appendicitis is the most common indication for emergency surgery in the world. There is no one laboratory or radiological test that is used to diagnose it. Various routine and novel blood markers have been identified, however none have proved to be conclusive. The aim of this study was to combine routine blood markers to increase the sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing histologically confirmed appendicitis. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the theatre logs for the calendar year of 2015 to identify all of the appendectomies which were performed. We reviewed all of the admission bloods for the patients - including their white blood cell (WBC) count, their neutrophil count, and their C-Reactive protein (CRP) value. We also reviewed all of the histology to identify the inflamed appendices, and analysed all of this information together. Results The neutrophil count is the most sensitive of the three blood markers with a score of 82%. It has a specificity of 63%. The CRP value is the most specific of the three blood markers with a value of 67% and a sensitivity of 76%. WBC has a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 63%. Combining all of the blood values (i.e. elevated white blood cell count or elevated neutrophil count or elevated CRP) demonstrates a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 45%. Conclusion Combining routine admission blood markers (WBC, neutrophil count, and CRP) can assist in diagnosing appendicitis in unwell patients with abdominal pain.
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.