Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38740595›Full record

GuidelineSurgical endoscopy2024

SAGES guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis.

Sunjay S Kumar, Amelia T Collings, Ryan Lamm, Ivy N Haskins, Stefan Scholz, Pramod Nepal, Arianne T Train, Dimitrios I Athanasiadis, Philip H Pucher, Joel F Bradley and 4 more

Abstract readPractice GuidelineSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

14 authors.

Sunjay S KumarDepartment of Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Amelia T CollingsHiram C. Polk, Jr Department of Surgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.
Ryan LammDepartment of Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Ivy N HaskinsDepartment of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Stefan ScholzDivision of General and Thoracic Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Pramod NepalDivision of Colon & Rectal Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Arianne T TrainDepartment of Surgery, Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health, Lancaster, PA, USA.
Dimitrios I AthanasiadisDepartment of General Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Philip H PucherSchool of Pharmacy and Biosciences, University of Portsmouth & Department of General Surgery, Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK.
Joel F BradleyDepartment of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Nader M HannaDepartment of Surgery, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Francisco QuinterosDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, IL, USA.
Nisha NarulaDepartment of Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA.
Bethany J SlaterUniversity of Chicago Medicine, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue, MC 4062, Chicago, IL, USA. bjslater1@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-3397-6208

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAppendicitis is an extremely common disease with a variety of medical and surgical treatment approaches. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians and patients in decisions regarding the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis.

methodsA systematic review was conducted from 2010 to 2022 to answer 8 key questions relating to the diagnosis of appendicitis, operative or nonoperative management, and specific technical and post-operative issues for appendectomy. The results of this systematic review were then presented to a panel of adult and pediatric surgeons. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts.

resultsConditional recommendations were made in favor of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis being managed operatively, either delayed (>12h) or immediate operation (<12h), either suction and lavage or suction alone, no routine drain placement, treatment with short-term antibiotics postoperatively for complicated appendicitis, and complicated appendicitis previously treated nonoperatively undergoing interval appendectomy. A conditional recommendation signals that the benefits of adhering to a recommendation probably outweigh the harms although it does also indicate uncertainty.

conclusionsThese recommendations should provide guidance with regard to current controversies in appendicitis. The panel also highlighted future research opportunities where the evidence base can be strengthened.

Indexed as

AppendectomyAppendicitisAnti-Bacterial AgentsEvidence-Based MedicineHumansAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibioticsAppendectomyAppendicitisComplicatedGuidelineNonoperativePediatrics

Identifiers

PMID38740595

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.