Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35454059›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Utility of Red Cell Distribution Width (RDW) as a Noninvasive Biomarker for the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 5222 Cases.

Sachit Anand, Nellai Krishnan, Miro Jukić, Zvonimir Križanac, Carlos Martin Llorente Muñoz, Zenon Pogorelić

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Sachit AnandDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India.ORCID 0000-0002-0447-2350
Nellai KrishnanDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India.ORCID 0000-0002-7303-2754
Miro JukićDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, University Hospital of Split, 21000 Split, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0002-8853-4335
Zvonimir KrižanacDepartment of Surgery, University Hospital of Split, 21000 Split, Croatia.
Carlos Martin Llorente MuñozSurgical Clinic Medix-Muñoz, 28000 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4698-9593
Zenon PogorelićDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, University Hospital of Split, 21000 Split, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0002-1517-720X
University of Split · HRAll India Institute of Medical Sciences · INClínica Rementería · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Despite great advances in medicine, numerous available laboratory markers, and radiological imaging, the diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA) in some cases still remains controversial and challenging for clinicians. Because of that, clinicians are still looking for an ideal marker that would be specific to AA. The red blood cell distribution width (RDW) has been recently investigated in several studies as a potential biomarker for AA. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to systematically summarize and compare all relevant data on RDW as a diagnostic biomarker for AA. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Scientific databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Excerpta Medica database—EMBASE) were systematically searched for relevant comparative studies by two independent researches using keywords ((red cell distribution width) OR rdw) AND (appendicitis). An independent assessment of the methodological quality was performed by two authors using the Downs and Black scale. RevMan 5.4 software was used to perform the meta-analysis. Results: Fifteen studies were included in the final meta-analysis; the majority of the studies was retrospective. Nine studies compared the RDW values between AA and non-AA; four studies compared the same between AA and healthy controls, while two studies compared the RDW values among all three groups. The estimated heterogeneity among the studies for all outcome was statistically significant (I2 = 92−99%, p < 0.00001). The pooling the data demonstrated no statistically significant difference in the RDW values (weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.03, 95% CI = (−0.46, 0.52), p = 0.91) between AA and healthy controls as well as between AA and non-AA cases (WMD = 0.23, 95%CI = (−0.19, 0.65), p = 0.28). A separate subanalysis was performed to evaluate the utility of this biomarker for the pediatric age group. Pooling the data demonstrated no significant difference among the AA and non-AA groups in terms of the RDW values (WMD = 0.99, 95% CI = (−0.35, 2.33), p = 0.15). Conclusion: The RDW value difference demonstrated no statistically significant difference in AA versus healthy individuals and AA versus non-AA individuals. At the moment, there is no evidence of RDW utility in diagnostic testing of AA. Further research with prospective, multicenter studies and studies targeting special patient groups with a large sample size are needed in this field.

Indexed as

acute appendicitisappendicitisRDWred cell distribution width

Identifiers

PMID35454059
PMCPMC9032964
OpenAlexW4224142207

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.