ArticleCureus2024
A Retrospective Study to Assess the Clinical Benefit of Ultrasound Scans Alone in the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis With Normal Biochemical Findings.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Acute appendicitis can affect patients of any age, although it is uncommon in the extremes of age. Timely diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis can have a significant positive effect on both patient care and the local population's wider health. A variety of different imaging modalities exists to investigate possible appendicitis including ultrasound (US) scan, computed tomography (CT) scan, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). However, clinicians are at risk of overreliance on radiology alone, rather than clinical history and examination findings, to make a diagnosis. Method A team at a district general hospital (DGH) within the United Kingdom carried out a retrospective, single-centre audit over a three-month period using a general surgical handover list to collate data. The aim of the audit was to assess the value US added when reviewing paediatric patients for suspected appendicitis if biochemical results and clinical findings were within normal parameters. Results Following the exclusion of inappropriate patients, 76 patients were incorporated in the data collection process. Of those patients reviewed, eight (11%) of the population had a positive diagnosis of appendicitis, zero (0%) of which had positive US results. Fifty-three patients (70%) had negative US findings, and 23 patients (30%) did not receive a US at all. Fifty-three patients in whom a US was performed (100%) had a negative US as well as normal inflammatory markers (white cell count, C-reactive protein, and neutrophil). Conclusion US alone is not sufficient to rule out appendicitis and should be used when there is a moderate to high degree of clinical suspicion of appendicitis. US should be used, in conjunction with clinical and biochemical evidence, to help confirm a diagnosis of appendicitis only.
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.