SynthesisInternational wound journal2024
Impact of surgical site infection after open and laparoscopic surgery among paediatric appendicitis patients: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International wound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of surgical site infection after open and laparoscopic surgery among paediatric appendicitis patients: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2024Pooled it
- Comparative analysis of laparoscopic versus open surgery in appendicitis management.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Impact of laser acupuncture on gastrointestinal function recovery in patients after acute appendicitis surgery: A retrospective clinical study.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- RETRACTION: Impact of Surgical Site Infection After Open and Laparoscopic Surgery Among Paediatric Appendicitis Patients: A Meta-Analysis.International wound journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2025-03-17Compromised Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Operative site wound infection is one of the most frequent infections in surgery. A variety of studies have shown that the results of laparoscopy might be superior to those of an open procedure. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of clarity as to whether there is a difference between open and laparoscopy with respect to the occurrence of wound infections in different paediatric operations. In this review, we looked at randomized, controlled studies that directly measured the rate of wound infection following an appendectomy with a laparoscope. We looked up four main databases for randomized, controlled studies that compare the treatment of paediatric appendicitis with laparoscopy. The surgeries included appendectomy. Through our search, we have determined 323 related papers and selected five qualified ones to be analysed according to the eligibility criteria. Five trials were also assessed for the quality of the documents. In the 5 trials, there were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of post-operative wound infection among the paediatric appendectomy and the open-access group (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-1.15, p = 0.13). The four trials did not show any statistically significant difference in abdominal abscesses among the laparoscopic and open-access treatment groups (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.90-3.01, p = 0.11). The four trials did not reveal any statistically significant difference in operating time (mean difference, -4.36; 95% CI, -17.31 to 8.59, p = 0.51). In light of these findings, the use of laparoscopy as compared with the open-approach approach in paediatric appendectomies is not associated with a reduction in the risk of wound infection.
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.