ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Many diagnostic tools for appendicitis: a scoping review.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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.
- European surgical societies rarely have recommendations for the treatment of appendicitis - a survey.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to provide an overview of all diagnostic tools developed to diagnose appendicitis with their reported accuracy and to further characterize these including their need for diagnostic equipment.
methodsThis scoping review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews and a protocol was registered at Open Science Framework. We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Índice Bibliográfico Espanhol de Ciências da Saúde, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature. We included original articles of all languages with the purpose to derive an accessible diagnostic tool. We extracted data regarding study- and diagnostic tool characteristics, and the accuracy of each diagnostic tool.
resultsThe search led to 6419 records, where 74 studies were included, yielding 82 diagnostic tools reported in seven different languages. Among these tools, 35% included patient characteristics, 85% symptoms, 93% physical examinations, 37% vital signs, 78% laboratory values, and 16% imaging. Among the diagnostic tools, 35% relied on a medical doctor/surgeon with access to a laboratory, and six diagnostic tools did not require a bedside medical doctor/surgeon. The median positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity across diagnostic tools were 91%, 94%, 89%, and 86%, respectively.
conclusionsWe identified 82 diagnostic tools that most frequently were based on symptoms and physical examinations. Most diagnostic tools relied on a medical doctor/surgeon with access to laboratory values. The accuracy was high across the diagnostic tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36735050What 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.