ArticleBMC surgery2025
Predictors of true appendicitis in pregnancy: a pathology-based 10-year cohort study.
Article in BMC surgery, 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.
- Epidemiology of appendicitis in Ecuador, 2004-2024: a national time-series analysis of incidence, trends, geographic variation, and case-fatality rates.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the diagnostic value of physical examination, ultrasonography (USG), and white blood cell (WBC) count in pregnant patients with suspected acute appendicitis and to determine which parameters are most significant in differentiating true appendicitis from non-appendicitis cases.
methodsThis hospital-based study involved pregnant women who underwent surgery for suspected acute appendicitis. Data were collected from patient records, including physical examination findings, USG results, WBC counts, intraoperative and pathological findings, and hospital stay duration. Patients were divided into two groups based on pathological diagnosis: those with confirmed appendicitis and those without.
resultsA total of 106 pregnant women were included in the study. Physical examination revealed that rebound and defense signs were significantly higher in the appendicitis group (p < 0.001). USG correctly diagnosed appendicitis in 66% of cases in the appendicitis group compared to 28% in the non-appendicitis group (p = 0.003). The mean WBC count was significantly higher in the appendicitis group (14.30 ± 4.77) than in the non-appendicitis group (12.37 ± 4.29) (p = 0.040). The average length of hospital stay did not significantly differ between the two groups.
conclusionPhysical examination, USG, and WBC count are valuable diagnostic tools in differentiating true appendicitis from non-appendicitis cases in pregnant patients. Early diagnosis and timely surgical intervention can significantly reduce the risk of complications. However, a thorough evaluation is essential to minimize the risk of negative exploration.
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.