ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2026
Digital cholangioscope-assisted endoscopic direct-vision appendicitis therapy versus laparoscopic appendectomy for chronic appendicitis: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2026. 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.
- Endoscopic drainage and one-stage titanium clip closure for appendiceal root abscess mimicking cecal submucosal tumor: a case report.Frontiers in medicine · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is the conventional treatment for chronic appendicitis. Endoscopic direct-vision appendicitis therapy (EDAT) has emerged as a minimally invasive, organ-preserving alternative. Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of EDAT versus LA in chronic appendicitis. Design: Multicenter retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching (PSM). Methods: This multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted in China between January 2019 and February 2024. PSM was performed to minimize selection bias. A total of 186 patients with chronic appendicitis were included, including 63 who received EDAT and 123 who underwent LA. The primary outcome was the clinical success rate. The secondary outcomes included the technical success rate, duration of hospitalization, adverse event rate, and recurrence rate. Results: Compared with LA, EDAT showed comparable clinical success (95.2% vs 100%, Conclusion: Compared with LA, EDAT is a safe, effective, organ-preserving alternative technique for chronic appendicitis, offering a shorter recovery time, reduced adverse event rates, and a low recurrence rate observed during follow-up.
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.