Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34822260›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2022

Laparoscopy uptake for paediatric appendicectomy: a comparison of general surgeons versus specialist paediatric surgeons in England from 1997 to 2015.

G S Bethell, S Adams, T Johnson, N J Hall, M P Stanton

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

G S BethellUniversity of Southampton, UK.
S AdamsUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
T JohnsonUniversity of Southampton, UK.
N J HallUniversity of Southampton, UK.
M P StantonUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
University of Southampton · GBUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionLaparoscopy is used in as many as 95% of adult appendicectomies. There is level I evidence showing that it reduces wound infection, postoperative ileus and length of inpatient stay in children compared with the open approach. The aim of this study was to report the uptake of laparoscopy for paediatric appendicectomy in England and to determine whether this was similar for general surgeons (GS) and specialist paediatric surgeons (SPS).

methodsHospital Episode Statistics data were obtained for all children aged <16 years who had an OPCS 4.6 code for emergency appendicectomy from 1997 to 2015 (18 years). Data are analysed to compare rate of laparoscopic vs open procedures for GS and SPS over time and to investigate factors associated with the use of laparoscopy.

resultsThere were 196,987 appendicectomies and where specialty was available, 133,709 (79%) cases were undertaken by GS and 35,141 (21%) by SPS. The rate of cases undertaken with laparoscopy for both specialties combined increased from 0.8% in 1998 to 50% in 2014 (

conclusionsThere has been a vast increase in the proportion of appendicectomies undertaken laparoscopically in children. Despite adjusting for patient factors, laparoscopy was used significantly less by GS when compared with SPS. This difference is most apparent in younger children.

Indexed as

AppendicitisLaparoscopySurgeonsAdultAppendectomyChildEnglandFemaleHumansLength of StayRetrospective StudiesAppendicitisLaparoscopyOutcomesPaediatric surgery

Identifiers

PMID34822260
PMCPMC9246551
OpenAlexW3214837567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.