ArticleWorld journal of surgery2023
Assessing Clinical Acumen in Predicting Acute Appendicitis in Emergency Surgery: A Prospective Study.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Time to improve the management of patients with suspected acute appendicitis: a retrospective study.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical acumen and experience are critical in the diagnosis of the commonest surgical emergency, acute appendicitis. However, there is an increasing focus on haematological and radiological parameters in reaching the diagnosis of appendicitis, which can negate the importance of clinical findings. The aim was to assess the accuracy of each grade of the surgical team in diagnosing acute appendicitis using clinical acuity alone and compare them to each other as well as validated predictive scores.
methodsA prospective single-centre study was performed over a six-month period (Dec 2020-May 2021). All patients presenting to the emergency department with right iliac fossa pain were included.
resultsA total of 180 patients were included of whom 35% were male. Mean age was 36.2 years (range 16-91). 51.1% had a final diagnosis of appendicitis, of which 91.3% were managed surgically and 8.7% were treated conservatively with antibiotics. Consultants were correct in their prediction of appendicitis in 84.6% of cases (females-83.4%, males-86.6%). Registrars accurately predicted appendicitis in 82.2% of patients (females-80.3%, males-85.7%), whilst house officers (SHOs) and interns were right in 73.8% (females-69.2%, males-82.5%) and 72.7% (females-66.6%, males-83.9%) of cases, respectively. In patients with a histological or radiological diagnosis of appendicitis, the mean Acute Inflammatory Response Score and Acute Appendicitis Score were 7.0 (high risk ≥ 9) and 12.5 (high risk ≥ 16), respectively. Clinicians had superior diagnostic accuracy when compared with both the clinical scores used.
conclusionSeniority was associated with improved diagnostic accuracy in clinically predicting acute appendicitis. This study showed that the clinical judgement of experienced surgeons is more reliable than clinical scores in the diagnosis of appendicitis.
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.