ArticleJournal of clinical and translational research2021
Computerized tomography scan in acute appendicitis with eventual negative appendectomy.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational research, 2021. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasound vs. clinical diagnosis-which is better in diagnosing acute appendicitis?: a cohort study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023Article
- A Review of Radiological Investigations in Cases of Acute Appendicitis in a Tertiary Care Hospital.Cureus · 2023Article
- Acute appendicitis-advances and controversies.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimAcute appendicitis (AA) is traditionally considered a clinical diagnosis and negative appendectomy (NA) rates vary across health-care systems. Computed tomography (CT) scans have been shown to aid in the reduction of NA rates. Our study aimed to determine the pre-operative imaging characteristics in patients undergoing appendectomy with eventual normal histology. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn audit of all patients with a discharge diagnosis of AA was conducted from January 2011 to December 2015. Histology reports of all patients who underwent appendectomies were reviewed, and medical records of patients with NA were included in the study. To study the impact of CT scan reporting in NA patients, CT scan images of patients with NA were reviewed retrospectively by two blinded radiologists.
resultsA total of 2603 patients underwent appendectomy for suspected AA, and NA rate was 3.34% (n=87). The mean age of patients with NA was 30.3 (14.8-69.8) years with no gender difference (51.7% male). Sixty-six (75.9%) patients had laparoscopic appendectomy with 3.5% open conversion rate. CT scans were done in 47 patients. Pre-operative CT scan report was more likely to report dilated appendix (n=26 [55.3%] vs. n=7 [14.9%], P=0.0001). Post-operative blinded radiology review was more like to report other pathology (n=27 [57.4%] vs. n=2 [4.3%], P=0.0001) and normal appendix (n=26 [55.3%] vs. n=5 (10.6%), P=0.0001).
conclusionThe NA rate is low. There needs to be standardized reporting for imaging features of prominent/dilated appendix. RELEVANCE FOR PATIENTS: Appendectomy must be avoided in patients with a normal CT scan and when another pathological diagnosis is established. Liberal imaging policy assists to reduce NA rates. Imaging features of prominent or dilated appendix can be subjective and international collaboration is needed to define thresholds for imaging diagnosis of AA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34239992PMC8259608W3181265269What 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.