ArticleCureus2023
The Necessity of Routine Pre-operative Group and Save Testing for Emergency Appendectomies.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Substantial international variation in the cost of blood group and save and crossmatch: A systematic review.British journal of haematology · 2026Pooled it
- Audit of Group and Save Sample Rejection in Fractured Neck of Femur Patients at a United Kingdom District Hospital.Cureus · 2026Article
- Routine Group-and-Save (G+S) Testing Prior to Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A 10-Year Single-Centre Review.Cureus · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Pre-surgical group and save (G&S) tests are routine but can result in unnecessary expense and theatre delays. The objective of this study was to assess the necessity of G&S testing prior to appendectomy and evaluate the cost implications. Methods This retrospective study analysed the records of 200 patients with appendicitis who underwent emergency appendectomies at a busy general surgery department between March 2021 to August 2022. The study adhered to local clinical governance unit protocol and the Strengthening the Reporting of Cohort Studies in Surgery (STROCCS) guidelines. Patients who had elective appendectomies or other emergency procedures were excluded. Data was collected on age, gender, number of samples and requirement for perioperative transfusion. Comparisons were drawn between patients who underwent laparoscopic, open or converted emergency appendectomies. Results Of the sample population, (median age 32, 55.5% male), 93.5% had valid preoperative G&S tests. None required perioperative blood transfusions. 26% of the patients only required one sample for a valid G&S due to having previous sample in the lab; 55% required two samples; 7% needed a third sample because one initial sample was rejected; and 5.5% required four samples because the initial two samples were rejected. The total cost of these samples was estimated to be £3,500.14. Conclusion Emergency appendectomy poses minimal risk of resulting in the need for blood transfusions. Reevaluating the need for routine preoperative G&S testing and adopting a risk-benefit analysis approach could have a financial benefit for the NHS.
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.