Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41046476›Full record

SynthesisJAMA pediatrics2026

Reevaluating Nonoperative Management for Pediatric Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Isabella Faria, Ana Carolina Godinho Cintra, Luiz Gustavo Albuquerque Mello de Oliveira, Frederico Squizzato, Alexandre Silva Maia, André Gusmão Cunha, Ravi S Radhakrishnan

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Isabella FariaDepartment of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston.
Ana Carolina Godinho CintraDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil.
Luiz Gustavo Albuquerque Mello de OliveiraDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil.
Frederico SquizzatoDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil.
Alexandre Silva MaiaDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil.
André Gusmão CunhaDepartment of Anesthesiology and Surgery, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil.
Ravi S RadhakrishnanDivision of Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Nonoperative management (NOM) has emerged as a potential alternative to surgery for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children; however, while short-term outcomes are often favorable, concerns remain about treatment durability, complication rates, and long-term failure. An updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) may help clarify the comparative safety and effectiveness of NOM vs appendectomy. Objective: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of NOM compared with appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis in children using the highest level of available evidence. Data Sources: A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science was conducted from inception through March 2025 to identify randomized clinical trials comparing NOM with surgical management in pediatric patients. Study Selection: RCTs comparing NOM vs surgical management in pediatric patients younger than 18 years were included. Nonrandomized and quasi-randomized studies were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed independently by multiple reviewers. Trial sequential analysis was performed to determine whether the evidence was sufficiently robust and conclusive. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were treatment failure and treatment success in 1 year and major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIb). Secondary outcomes included time to return to school and time to return to normal activity. Results: Of 1246 studies screened, 7 RCTs, including 1480 pediatric patients, met inclusion criteria. Treatment failure was significantly higher in the NOM group than in the appendectomy group at 1 year (risk ratio [RR], 4.97; 95% CI, 3.57-6.91; I2 = 0.0%). Treatment success was significantly lower in the NOM group at 1 year (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.60-0.75; I2 = 31.1%). Major complications classified as Clavien-Dindo grade IIIb or worse were more frequent in the NOM group (RR, 33.37; 95% CI, 7.89-141.05; I2 = 9.5%). Appendicitis recurred at a rate of 18.47 events/100 observations (95% CI, 12.62-25.07 events/100 observations; I2 = 48.5%) among patients who received NOM. NOM, compared with appendectomy, was associated with a modestly faster return to school (mean difference, -1.36 days; 95% CI, -2.64 to -0.08 days; P = .04; I2 = 57.7%) and return to normal activities (-4.93 days; 95% CI, -8.68 to -1.19 days; P = .01; I2 = 87.2%), although this may be offset by subsequent readmissions or reintervention. Trial sequential analysis demonstrated the robustness and conclusiveness of primary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: In contrast to earlier studies, this meta-analysis found significantly higher treatment failure and major complication rates within a year with NOM among children and adolescents. The meta-analysis provides pediatricians and pediatric surgeons with up-to-date data to inform shared decision-making with families and encourage individualized, patient-centered treatment.

Indexed as

AppendectomyAppendicitisConservative TreatmentAcute DiseaseChildChild, PreschoolHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID41046476
PMCPMC12498239

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.