The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery for acute appendicitis has been proposed to have advantages over conventional surgery. OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic and therapeutic effects of laparoscopic and conventional 'open' surgery. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, SciSearch, the congress proceedings of endoscopic surgical societies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized clinical trials comparing laparoscopic (LA) versus open appendectomy (OA) in adults or children. Studies comparing immediate OA versus diagnostic laparoscopy (followed by LA or OA if necessary) were separately identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality. Missing information or data was requested from the authors. We used odds ratios (OR), relative risks (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 54 studies, of which 45 compared LA (with or without diagnostic laparoscopy) vs. OA in adults. Wound infections were less likely after LA than after OA (OR 0.45; CI 0.35 to 0.58), but the incidence of intraabdominal abscesses was increased (OR 2.48; CI 1.45 to 4.21). The duration of surgery was 12 minutes (CI 7 to 16) longer for LA. Pain on day 1 after surgery was reduced after LA by 9 mm (CI 5 to 13 mm) on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. Hospital stay was shortened by 1.1 day (CI 0.6 to 1.5). Return to normal activity, work, and sport occurred earlier after LA than after OA. While the operation costs of LA were significantly higher, the costs outside hospital were reduced. Five studies on children were included, but the result do not seem to be much different when compared to adults. Diagnostic laparoscopy reduced the risk of a negative appendectomy, but this effect was stronger in fertile women (RR 0.20; CI 0.11 to 0.34) as compared to unselected adults (RR 0.37; CI 0.13 to 1.01). REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: In those clinical settings where surgical expertise and equipment are available and affordable, diagnostic laparoscopy and LA (either in combination or separately) seem to have various advantages over OA. Some of the clinical effects of LA, however, are small and of limited clinical relevance. In spite of the mediocre quality of the available research data, we would generally recommend to use laparoscopy and LA in patients with suspected appendicitis unless laparoscopy itself is contraindicated or not feasible. Especially young female, obese, and employed patients seem to benefit from LA.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials.
Benson, K., & Hartz, A. J. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200006223422506 · Cited by 2,347
THE EPIDEMIOLOGY OF APPENDICITIS AND APPENDECTOMY IN THE UNITED STATES
ADDISS, D. G., SHAFFER, N., FOWLER, B. S., & TAUXE, R. V. (1990) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115734 · Cited by 2,250
Variance imputation for overviews of clinical trials with continuous response
Follmann, D., Elliott, P., Suh, I., & Cutler, J. (1992) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(92)90054-q · Cited by 1,385
Semm, K. (1983) · Endoscopy · doi:10.1055/s-2007-1021466 · Cited by 1,151
Has Misdiagnosis of Appendicitis Decreased Over Time?: A Population-Based Analysis
Flum, D. R., Morris, A., Koepsell, T., & Dellinger, E. P. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.286.14.1748 · Cited by 498
Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy: Outcomes Comparison Based on a Large Administrative Database
Guller, U., Hervey, S., Purves, H., Muhlbaier, L. H., Peterson, E. D., Eubanks, S., & Pietrobon, R. (2004) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000103071.35986.c1 · Cited by 486
Majeed, A. W., Troy, G., Smythe, A., Reed, M. W. R., Stoddard, C. J., Peacock, J., Johnson, A. G., & Nicholl, J. (1996) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(96)90143-9 · Cited by 418
Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy: A Metaanalysis
Golub, R., Siddiqui, F., & Pohl, D. (1998) · Journal of the American College of Surgeons · doi:10.1016/s1072-7515(98)00080-5 · Cited by 354
Cited by
Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis
Jaschinski, T., Mosch, C. G., Eikermann, M., Neugebauer, E. A., & Sauerland, S. (2018) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001546.pub4 · Cited by 1,016
Self-citationSauerland, S., Agresta, F., Bergamaschi, R., Borzellino, G., Budzynski, A., Champault, G., Fingerhut, A., Isla, A., Johansson, M., Lundorff, P., et al. (2006) · Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques · doi:10.1007/s00464-005-0564-0 · Cited by 395
Self-citationLaparoscopic surgery: A qualified systematic review
Buia, A., Stockhausen, F., & Hanisch, E. (2015) · World Journal of Methodology · doi:10.5662/wjm.v5.i4.238 · Cited by 266
Metadata
- Authors
- Sauerland, S., Lefering, R., & Neugebauer, E. A.
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
- Published
- 2004-10-18
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- CD001546-CD001546
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4247454167
- Cited by
- 303
- References
- 34
- Type
- reference entry
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd001546.pub2
- The paper
- Sauerland, S., Lefering, R., & Neugebauer, E. A. (2004). Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001546.pub2
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.