ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
Significance of the Entire Appendiceal Evaluation in the Diagnosis of Serrated Lesions, Low-Grade Appendiceal Mucinous Neoplasm, and Appendiceal Diverticulosis Disease.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Low-Grade Appendiceal Mucinous Neoplasm Presenting as an Appendiceal Mucocele: A Case Report.Cureus · 2026Article
- Incidental serrated lesions of the appendix: analysis of 2,137 appendectomy specimens.Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2026Article
- Acellular mucin in neoplastic and non-neoplastic conditions of the lower gastrointestinal tract.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
- A Case of Acute Appendicitis With Mucocele, Serrated Adenoma, and Enterobius vermicularis as Underlying Etiologies.Cureus · 2025Article
- Rate of Neoplasia in Patients with Complicated Acute Appendicitis Managed Nonoperatively: A Prospective Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study was conducted in order to investigate the significance of the entire appendiceal evaluation in the pathological diagnosis of appendiceal serrated lesions, low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN), and appendiceal diverticulosis disease (ADD).
methodsA total of 702 appendectomy specimens diagnosed from 2017 to 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. The specimens were divided into two groups according to the different sampling procedures. In group 1, the vast majority of 337 specimens were partially submitted by routine sampling within 18 months from October 2017 to March 2019. In group 2, 365 of specimens were entirely submitted and examined within 18 months from April 2019 to October 2020. The incidence and pathological features of serrated lesions, LAMN, and ADD in the two groups were compared and analyzed. The clinicopathological characteristics between different entities were also studied.
resultsForty appendiceal serrated lesions, 8 LAMNs, and 21 diverticula were accidentally detected in 702 appendectomy specimens. As compared with group 1, the incidence of appendiceal serrated lesions in group 2 was significantly increased (9.3% vs. 1.8%,
conclusionOur study highlights the importance and necessity of careful gross assessment and histologic examination of the entire appendectomy specimen, since the association with unexpected appendiceal lesions is significant and cannot be ignored. The entirely submitted appendix is more sensitive for the detection of appendiceal serrated lesions. In addition, thorough examination and evaluation are essential to distinguish the key pathological features between appendiceal serrated lesions, LAMN, and ADD.
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.