ArticleCureus2026
Clinicopathological Profile and Management of Right Iliac Fossa Mass: A Retrospective Observational Study.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRight iliac fossa (RIF) mass is a common surgical presentation with diverse etiologies, including inflammatory, infective, and neoplastic conditions. Early diagnosis and appropriate management are essential to optimize outcomes, especially in developing countries.
methodsThis retrospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary healthcare center. A total of 26 patients presenting with RIF mass were included. All patients underwent detailed clinical evaluation, laboratory investigations, and imaging studies. Management strategies were tailored according to the underlying diagnosis and clinical condition.
resultsAppendicular pathology was the most common cause, accounting for 9 of 26 (34.6%) cases. Appendicular abscess was the second most common etiology, observed in 7 (26.9%) patients. Ileocecal tuberculosis constituted a significant proportion, observed in 6 (23.1%) patients, reflecting its continued prevalence in India. The majority of patients with appendicular lump and ileocecal tuberculosis were managed conservatively. Image-guided drainage was performed in selected cases of abscess, while surgical intervention was reserved for complicated cases and suspected malignancies.
conclusionAppendicular pathology remains the leading cause of RIF mass. Conservative management is effective in most cases of appendicular lump and ileocecal tuberculosis, while image-guided drainage or surgical intervention is required in patients with abscess, recurrence, or complications. An early, etiology-based, individualized approach is essential for optimal 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.