Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35308656›Full record

ReviewCureus2022

Physical Examination and Appendiceal Signs During Pregnancy.

Steven Yale, Halil Tekiner, Eileen S Yale

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 97% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Steven YaleInternal Medicine, University of Central Florida College of Medicine, Orlando, USA.
Halil TekinerMedical History and Ethics, Erciyes University Faculty of Medicine, Kayseri, TUR.
Eileen S YaleGeneral Internal Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, USA.
Erciyes University · TRUniversity of Central Florida · USUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis is challenging as patients present with an array of objective and subjective symptoms early or late in the disease course. Ultrasound is routinely performed in all patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Equivocal test results frequently require further assessments using other imaging techniques that are limited in scope during pregnancy because of issues involving safety, availability, and accessibility. Physical examination diagnostic signs in acute appendicitis during pregnancy have not been well studied. Studies failed to describe, standardize, or correlate the technique used to the pathologic disease process. Therefore, gaps remain in current knowledge regarding the usefulness and application of these tests during the physical examination. Improvement in diagnostic acumen is critically important, particularly in cases where there remains diagnostic uncertainty because of equivocal imaging results. This article reviews signs used to diagnose patients with acute appendicitis using a pathophysiologic approach based on visceral and cerebrospinal nerve pathways to explain the mechanism for a positive test result. It also suggests a framework to study them further to better understand their role, if any, in clinical practice.

Indexed as

alders signbryan signcope signphysical examinationrovsing sign

Identifiers

PMID35308656
PMCPMC8923254
OpenAlexW4213268681

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.