ReviewHealth science reports2025
Economic Evaluation of Acute Appendicitis Therapeutic Interventions: A Systematic Review.
Review in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Role of Emerging Immune-Inflammatory Indexes in the Preoperative Differentiation of Complicated and Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Acute appendicitis (AA) is a prevalent cause of lower abdominal pain, often leading patients to seek emergency department care, particularly among young individuals. The present study aimed to systematically review cost-effectiveness studies focusing on therapeutic interventions for AA. Method: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we systematically reviewed economic evaluations of AA treatments published between 2000 and 2020. We searched multiple databases, including Cochrane, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The studies included in this review were assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) checklist, and cost data were standardized to 2022 US dollars. Results: Out of the 53 screened studies, 11 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The studies' average QHES score was of high quality (0.87). Most studies were from the payer's perspective and the health system (four studies each). Five studies were based on the decision tree model, and three were based on the Markov model. Four studies were conducted on children. Of the 11 studies reviewed, five support the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopy, five support the cost-effectiveness of antibiotic therapy, and one supports the cost-effectiveness of open appendectomy. Conclusions: Based on the findings of this study, laparoscopic therapeutic intervention, compared to open appendectomy, can be more cost-effective for the treatment of patients with AA.
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.