Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35021234›Full record

ReviewEndoscopy2022

Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy versus laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

Baohong Yang, Lingjian Kong, Saif Ullah, Lixia Zhao, Dan Liu, Deliang Li, Xuezhong Shi, Xiaocan Jia, Paras Dalal, Bingrong Liu

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Relationship between the appendix and ulcerative colitis: A new discovery.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Baohong YangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Lingjian KongDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Saif UllahDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Lixia ZhaoDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Dan LiuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Deliang LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Xuezhong ShiDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Xiaocan JiaDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Paras DalalDepartment of Radiology, Harefield Hospital, Harefield, United kingdom.
Bingrong LiuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (ERAT) is a new and minimally invasive technique for the treatment of acute appendicitis. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and clinical outcomes of ERAT versus laparoscopic appendectomy for patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

methodsWe adopted propensity score matching (1:1) to compare ERAT and laparoscopic appendectomy in patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis between April 2017 and March 2020. We reviewed 2880 patients with suspected acute appendicitis, of whom 422 patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis met the matching criteria (ERAT 79; laparoscopic appendectomy 343), yielding 78 pairs of patients.

resultsThe rate of curative treatment within 1 year after ERAT was 92.1 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 83.8 % to 96.3 %). The percentage of patients recording visual analog scale values of  ≤ 3 for pain at 6 hours after treatment was 94.7 % (95 %CI 87.2 % to 97.9 %) in the ERAT group, which was significantly higher than that in the laparoscopic appendectomy group (83.3 %; 95 %CI 73.5 % to 90.0 %). Median procedure time and median hospital length of stay were significantly lower in the ERAT group compared with the laparoscopic appendectomy group. At 1 year, the median recurrence time was 50 days (interquartile range 25-127) in the ERAT group. The overall adverse event rate was 24.4 % (95 %CI 14.8 % to 33.9 %) in the laparoscopic appendectomy group and 18.4 % (95 %CI 9.7 % to 27.1 %) in the ERAT group, with no significant difference between the two groups.

conclusionERAT was a technically feasible method of treating uncomplicated acute appendicitis compared with laparoscopic appendectomy.

Indexed as

AppendicitisLaparoscopyAcute DiseaseAppendectomyHumansLength of StayTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID35021234
PMCPMC9329065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.