ReviewCureus2025
Delayed Appendectomy Versus Early Intervention: A Systematic Review of Outcomes in Complicated Appendicitis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative evaluation of early versus delayed appendectomy in complicated appendicitis.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Comparative study of early versus interval appendicectomy in appendicular mass.Bioinformation · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The management of complicated appendicitis remains a subject of debate, particularly concerning the optimal timing of surgical intervention. While early appendectomy has been the traditional approach, there is growing clinical interest in delayed surgery with initial antibiotic therapy. The existing evidence, however, presents conflicting outcomes, creating uncertainty for surgeons. Therefore, the rationale for this study is to synthesize the available evidence to provide a clearer understanding of the comparative outcomes of early versus delayed surgical strategies. This systematic review aims to evaluate the outcomes of delayed versus early surgical intervention in patients with complicated appendicitis. A comprehensive search of four databases yielded 452 relevant publications. After duplicate removal using Rayyan QCRI, 162 records were screened for relevance, and 29 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Ultimately, three studies met the inclusion criteria for evidence synthesis. The total pooled population was 41,274 patients (Early Surgery [ES] Group: 35,923; Delayed Surgery [LS] Group: 5,351), of whom 22,789 (55.2%) were male. The analysis revealed a nuanced tradeoff between the two approaches. Early surgery was consistently associated with a shorter overall hospital stay and lower medical costs. However, it was linked to a higher incidence of wound infections. Conversely, delayed surgery was associated with a significantly lower rate of major surgical procedures, such as ileocecectomy or right hemicolectomy, and fewer overall complications, despite sometimes resulting in a longer hospitalization. These findings highlight the complexity of decision-making in complicated appendicitis. The choice between early and delayed intervention involves balancing the risks of infection against the need for more extensive surgery. This contradiction in the literature underscores the necessity for further rigorous, prospective studies to definitively establish optimal timing and develop tailored treatment strategies that improve patient outcomes.
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.