SynthesisBMC surgery2025
Early versus delayed laparoscopic appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC surgery, 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.
- Impact of in-hospital delay on clinical and economic outcomes after laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a single-center retrospective cohort study.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2026Article
- Preoperative differentiation of acute appendicitis using NLR, SII, and maximum appendiceal diameter: a retrospective single-center diagnostic study.Frontiers in surgery · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal timing of laparoscopic appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis remains uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare operative and safety outcomes following early versus delayed laparoscopic appendectomy in adults.
methodsPubMed, Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through October 2024 for randomized and cohort studies. Six studies (one RCT, five cohorts) including 2,429 patients were analyzed. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane tools. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan and R (meta/metafor).
resultsThere were no significant differences in operative time (mean difference − 2.3 min) or postoperative length of stay (− 0.7 days). Rates of perforation (RR 0.87), mortality (RR 0.87), surgical-site infection (RR 0.98), overall complications (RR 0.94), and 30-day readmission (RR 1.16) were comparable between groups. Cohort studies were of high quality, while the single RCT showed minor bias concerns.
conclusionsOur Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis produced comparable operative and safety outcomes between early and delayed appendectomy, indicating that a delay in operation of 8 h, due to logistics issues, can be acceptable in terms of clinical outcomes. This recommendation can be solidified via further randomized controlled trials and larger umbrella reviews.
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.