ArticleAnnals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches2022
Randomized Pilot Test of a Decision Support Tool for Acute Appendicitis: Decisional Conflict and Acceptability in a Healthy Population.
Article in Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Success in Diverticulitis Management: What Outcomes Really Matter?Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2025Review
- Improving lung cancer decision-making using a conversation tool (iDECIDE): a stepped wedge pragmatic clinical trial.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Generalized Pairwise Comparisons to Support Shared Decision-Making in the CODA Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Development and Feasibility Testing of a Decision Aid for Acute Appendicitis.The Journal of surgical research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To test the effect of a new decision support tool for acute appendicitis and assess its efficacy and acceptability. Background: Mounting evidence from randomized controlled trials have shown that antibiotics can be a safe and effective treatment for appendicitis. Patients and surgeons must work together to choose the optimal treatment approach for each patient based on their own preferences and values. We developed a decision support tool to facilitate shared decision-making for appendicitis and its effect on decisional outcomes remains unknown. Methods: We conducted an online randomized field test in at-risk individuals comparing the decision support tool to a standard infographic. Individuals were randomized 3:1 to view the decision support tool or infographic. The primary outcome was the total decisional conflict scale (DCS) score measured before and after exposure to the decision support tool. Secondary outcomes included between-group DCS scores, and between-group comparisons of the acceptability. Results: One hundred eighty individuals were included in the study. Total DCS scores decreased significantly after viewing the decision support tool (59 [95% confidence interval (CI): 55-63] to 15 [95% CI: 12-17], Conclusions: These data support the further use and testing of this novel decision support tool in patients with acute 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.