Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38682788›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2024

Appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment for acute appendicitis.

Brett Doleman, Siv Fonnes, Jon N Lund, Hannah Boyd-Carson, Hannah Javanmard-Emamghissi, Susan Moug, Marianne Hollyman, Gillian Tierney, Samson Tou, John P Williams

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment for acute appendicitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Parasitic appendicitis, what do we know?-a literature review.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025
    Review
  11. 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

10 authors.

Brett DolemanDepartment of Surgery and Anaesthesia, Division of Medical Sciences and Graduate Entry Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK.
Siv FonnesCenter for Perioperative Optimization, Department of Surgery, Herlev Hospital, Herlev, Denmark.
Jon N LundDivision of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK.
Hannah Boyd-CarsonDepartment of Surgery, Division of Medical Sciences and Graduate Entry Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK.
Hannah Javanmard-EmamghissiFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, UK.
Susan MougDepartment of Surgery, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley, UK.
Marianne HollymanDepartment of General Surgery, Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK.
Gillian TierneyDepartment of Surgery, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, UK.
Samson TouDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, UK.
John P WilliamsDepartment of Surgery and Anaesthesia, Division of Medical Sciences and Graduate Entry Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcute appendicitis is one of the most common emergency general surgical conditions worldwide. Uncomplicated/simple appendicitis can be treated with appendectomy or antibiotics. Some studies have suggested possible benefits with antibiotics with reduced complications, length of hospital stay, and the number of days off work. However, surgery may improve success of treatment as antibiotic treatment is associated with recurrence and future need for surgery.

objectivesTo assess the effects of antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated/simple acute appendicitis compared with appendectomy for resolution of symptoms and complications. SEARCH

methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registers (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov) on 19 July 2022. We also searched for unpublished studies in conference proceedings together with reference checking and citation search. There were no restrictions on date, publication status, or language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included studies where most participants were adults with uncomplicated/simple appendicitis. Interventions included antibiotics (by any route) compared with appendectomy (open or laparoscopic). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Primary outcomes included mortality and success of treatment, and secondary outcomes included number of participants requiring appendectomy in the antibiotic group, complications, pain, length of hospital stay, sick leave, malignancy in the antibiotic group, negative appendectomy rate, and quality of life. Success of treatment definitions were heterogeneous although mainly based on resolution of symptoms rather than incorporation of long-term recurrence or need for surgery in the antibiotic group. MAIN

resultsWe included 13 studies in the review covering 1675 participants randomised to antibiotics and 1683 participants randomised to appendectomy. One study was unpublished. All were conducted in secondary care and two studies received pharmaceutical funding. All studies used broad-spectrum antibiotic regimens expected to cover gastrointestinal bacteria. Most studies used predominantly laparoscopic surgery, but some included mainly open procedures. Six studies included adults and children. Almost all studies aimed to exclude participants with complicated appendicitis prior to randomisation, although one study included 12% with perforation. The diagnostic technique was clinical assessment and imaging in most studies. Only one study limited inclusion by sex (male only). Follow-up ranged from hospital admission only to seven years. Certainty of evidence was mainly affected by risk of bias (due to lack of blinding and loss to follow-up) and imprecision. Primary outcomes It is uncertain whether there was any difference in mortality due to the very low-certainty evidence (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 4.95; 1 study, 492 participants). There may be 76 more people per 1000 having unsuccessful treatment in the antibiotic group compared with surgery, which did not reach our predefined level for clinical significance (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.96; I AUTHORS'

conclusionsAntibiotics may be associated with higher rates of unsuccessful treatment for 76 per 1000 people, although differences may not be clinically significant. It is uncertain if antibiotics increase length of hospital stay by half a day. Antibiotics may reduce wound infections. A third of the participants initially treated with antibiotics required subsequent appendectomy or two-thirds avoided surgery within one year, but the evidence is very uncertain. There were too few data from the included studies to comment on major complications.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsAppendectomyAppendicitisLength of StayRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAcute DiseaseAdultBiasFemaleHumansLaparoscopyMalePostoperative ComplicationsQuality of LifeRecurrenceSick LeaveAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID38682788
PMCPMC11057219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.