ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Improving sonographic visualisation of the appendix in a regional referral hospital.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ultrasound is a first-line and often preferred imaging modality in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. When the appendix is not visualised during a dedicated appendix ultrasound study, patients may require a CT study, which uses ionising radiation, or undergo conservative clinical observation with the inherent risk of clinical deterioration, perforation and sepsis. Median baseline data, at our hospital imaging department, revealed a rate of combined normal and abnormal appendix visualisation of 34.5% which is below the reported visualisation rates in the North American literature and well below the rates reported in the global literature. We embarked on a formal quality improvement (QI) project to improve the rates of appendix visualisation in our hospital ultrasound department. Using the Model of Improvement framework and a team approach, we generated and trialled multiple plan-do-study-act interventions over a project term of 12 months. In the second half of the project term, we saw a sustained rise in appendix visualisation exceeding our original stretch goal of 75% visualisation which was sustained 6 months after the formal project end (p<0.001). This rise was accompanied by a commensurate increase in sonographer confidence in appendix visualisation. In our case, the Model of Improvement methodology proved successful in solving our complex problem of sonographic appendix under-visualisation. The learnings of this QI project have been widely shared and spread according to the ethos of QI.
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.