Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35152882›Full record

Trial reportBMC gastroenterology2022

Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy versus laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a pilot study.

Zhemin Shen, Peilong Sun, Miao Jiang, Zili Zhen, Jingtian Liu, Mu Ye, Weida Huang

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC gastroenterology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Zhemin ShenDepartment of General Surgery, Jinshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Peilong Sun *Department of General Surgery, Jinshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. sunpeilong@fudan.edu.cn.
Miao Jiang *Department of Gastroenterology, Jinshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Zili ZhenDepartment of General Surgery, Jinshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Jingtian LiuDepartment of General Surgery, Jinshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Mu YeDepartment of General Surgery, Jinshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Weida HuangDepartment of General Surgery, Jinshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

Project of Shanghai Municipal Health Bureau in China No.201740041
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn increasing number of studies have shown the merits of endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (ERAT) in diagnosing and treating acute uncomplicated appendicitis. However, no related prospective controlled studies have been reported yet. Our aim is to assess the feasibility and safety of ERAT in the treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis.

methodsIn this open-label, randomized trial, participants were randomly allocated to the ERAT group, laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) group and open appendectomy (OA) group. The primary outcome was the clinical success rate of the treatment. Intention-to-treat analysis was used in the study.

resultsThe study comprised of 99 patients, with 33 participants in each group. The clinical success rate was 87.88% (29/33), 96.97% (32/33) and 100% (33/33) in the ERAT, LA and OA group, respectively. In the ERAT group, 4 patients failed ERAT due to difficult cannulation. In LA group, 1 patient failed because of abdominal adhesion. There were no significant differences among the three treatment groups regarding the clinical success rate (P = 0.123). The median duration of follow-up was 22 months. There were no significant differences (P = 0.693) among the three groups in terms of adverse events and the final crossover rate of ERAT to surgery was 21.21% (7/33).

conclusionERAT can serve as an alternative and efficient method to treat acute uncomplicated appendicitis. Trial registration The study is registered with the WHO Primary Registry-Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR1900025812).

Indexed as

AppendicitisLaparoscopyAcute DiseaseAppendectomyHumansLength of StayPilot ProjectsProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAcute appendicitisAppendectomyEndoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapyRandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID35152882
PMCPMC8842886

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.