SynthesisPediatric surgery international2026
Interval appendectomy practices for complicated appendicitis in children: a systematic review from the APSA Outcomes and Evidence-Based Practice Committee.
Synthesis in Pediatric surgery international, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis review summarizes considerations within the existing recent literature that guide the practice of interval appendectomy (IA) after initial non-operative management (NOM) of complicated appendicitis (CA) in children.
methodsA systematic review of English language articles published from 2000 to 2025 was conducted in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to address four elements which could impact the decision for IA after NOM of CA: (1) the incidence of recurrent appendicitis; (2) the time period in which recurrence occurs; (3) the patient or disease-related risk factors which increase recurrence; and (4) the incidence of appendiceal neoplasms identified by IA.
resultsOf the 3,022 articles initially reviewed, 46 met inclusion criteria. Recurrence was reported in 2–50% of patients. When IA is pursued, the optimal timing remains undefined, although evidence suggests most recurrences occur within three to six months, so there may be potential benefit to performing IA within three months after the initial presentation. Risk factors for recurrent appendicitis are not well characterized, though the presence of an appendicolith may increase recurrence risk. Across studies, the incidence of appendiceal neoplasms was rare, with most studies not documenting any cases; all reported neoplasms were neuroendocrine tumors.
conclusionCurrent evidence does not favor any single approach to IA, including routine IA, selective IA, or indefinite NOM; rather a shared-decision ought to be made between the surgeon and patient’s caregivers. Utilization and timing of IA must balance surgical risks with the risk of recurrent disease; however, the risk of neoplasm should not primarily drive management. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I−IIV.
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.