ArticlePediatric surgery international2022
Differences in isolated bacteria between perforated and non-perforated appendicitis: an analysis of 680 consecutive appendicectomies in a single institution.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microbial profiles in pediatric complicated appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Review
- Intraoperative bacterial cultures fail to reliably predict the bacterial spectrum encountered during infectious complications after appendicitis.Updates in surgery · 2024Article
- Association of the Bacteria of the Vermiform Appendix and the Peritoneal Cavity with Complicated Acute Appendicitis in Children.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEscherichia coli and Bacteroides species are the most frequently detected species in ascites in perforated appendicitis and are generally sensitive to non-empiric cephalosporins like cefazolin or cefmetazole. However, monotherapy with such antibiotics is mostly insufficient for perforated appendicitis. To investigate this issue, this study aimed to compare bacterial floras in ascites culture between perforated and non-perforated appendicitis.
methodsAscites culture results in perforated and non-perforated appendicitis cases were analyzed using a departmental database. The duration of symptoms before surgery, pre-surgical white blood cell count, C-reactive protein value, postsurgical length of stay, length of antibiotic treatment, and the rate of using second-line antibiotics or complications were also compared.
resultsA total of 608 and 72 cases of non-perforated and perforated appendicitis were included. Escherichia coli and Bacteroides species were the dominant bacteria in both conditions. However, the total proportions of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Streptococcus anginosus group, and Enterococcus group were significantly higher in perforated appendicitis than in non-perforated appendicitis.
conclusionPseudomonas aeruginosa, Streptococcus anginosus group, and Enterococcus group have better susceptibility to penicillin-based empiric antibiotics than cephalosporins. The abundance of these bacteria might explain why non-empiric cephalosporins are not effective in perforated appendicitis and the superiority of penicillin-based empiric antibiotics.
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.