Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37872491›Full record

ReviewBMC primary care2023

What is important to the GP in recognizing acute appendicitis in children: a delphi study.

Guus C G H Blok, Marjolein Y Berger, Arjan B Ahmeti, Gea A Holtman

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC primary care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Guus C G H BlokDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, PO Box 196, Groningen, 9700 AD, The Netherlands.
Marjolein Y BergerDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, PO Box 196, Groningen, 9700 AD, The Netherlands.
Arjan B AhmetiDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, PO Box 196, Groningen, 9700 AD, The Netherlands.
Gea A HoltmanDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, PO Box 196, Groningen, 9700 AD, The Netherlands. g.a.holtman@umcg.nl.
University Medical Center Groningen · NLUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor diagnostic research on appendicitis in registration data, insight is needed in the way GPs generate medical records. We aimed to reach a consensus on the features that GPs consider important in the consultation and medical records when evaluating a child with suspected appendicitis.

methodsWe performed a three-round Delphi study among Dutch GPs selected by purposive sampling. An initial feature list was created based on a literature search and features in the relevant Dutch guideline. Finally, using a vignette describing a child who needed later reassessment, we asked participants to complete an online questionnaire about which consultation features should be addressed and recorded.

resultsA literature review and Dutch guideline yielded 95 consultation features. All three rounds were completed by 22 GPs, with the final consensus list containing 26 symptoms, 29 physical assessments and signs, 2 additional tests, and 8 further actions (including safety-netting, i.e., informing the patient about when to contact the GP again). Of these, participants reached consensus that 37 should be actively addressed and that 20 need to be recorded if findings are negative.

conclusionsGPs agreed that negative findings do not need to be recorded for most features and that records should include the prognostic and safety-netting advice given. The results have implications in three main domains: for research, that negative findings are likely to be missing; for medicolegal purposes, that documentation cannot be expected to be complete; and for clinical practice, that safety-netting advice should be given and documented.

Indexed as

AppendicitisGeneral PractitionersAcute DiseaseChildDelphi TechniqueHumansPhysical ExaminationPrognosisAbdominal PainAppendicitisChildDelphi TechniqueMedical RecordsPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID37872491
PMCPMC10591392
OpenAlexW4387877458

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.