The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Randomized clinical trial of antibiotic therapy versus appendicectomy as primary treatment of acute appendicitis in unselected patients
Abstract
Background: A trial in selected men suggested that antibiotic therapy could be an alternative to appendicectomy in appendicitis. This study aimed to evaluate antibiotic therapy in unselected men and women with acute appendicitis. Methods: Consecutive patients were allocated to study (antibiotics) or control (surgery) groups according to date of birth. Study patients received intravenous antibiotics for 24 h and continued at home with oral antibiotics for 10 days. Control patients had a standard appendicectomy. Follow-up at 1 and 12 months was carried out according to intention and per protocol. Results: Study and control patients were comparable at inclusion; 106 (52·5 per cent) of 202 patients allocated to antibiotics completed the treatment and 154 (92·2 per cent) of 167 patients allocated to appendicectomy had surgery. Treatment efficacy was 90·8 per cent for antibiotic therapy and 89·2 per cent for surgery. Recurrent appendicitis occurred in 15 patients (13·9 per cent) after a median of 1 year. A third of recurrences appeared within 10 days and two-thirds between 3 and 16 months after hospital discharge. Minor complications were similar between the groups. Major complications were threefold higher in patients who had an appendicectomy (P < 0·050). Conclusion: Antibiotic treatment appears to be a safe first-line therapy in unselected patients with acute appendicitis. Registration number: NCT00469430 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).
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
Cited by
Acute appendicitis: modern understanding of pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management
Bhangu, A., Søreide, K., Di Saverio, S., Assarsson, J. H., & Drake, F. T. (2015) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)00275-5 · Cited by 1,303
A Randomized Trial Comparing Antibiotics with Appendectomy for Appendicitis
Collaborative, T. C. (2020) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2014320 · Cited by 573
Salminen, P., Tuominen, R., Paajanen, H., Rautio, T., Nordström, P., Aarnio, M., Rantanen, T., Hurme, S., Mecklin, J.-P., Sand, J., et al. (2018) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2018.13201 · Cited by 494
Diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis. EAES consensus development conference 2015
Gorter, R. R., Eker, H. H., Gorter-Stam, M. A. W., Abis, G. S. A., Acharya, A., Ankersmit, M., Antoniou, S. A., Arolfo, S., Babic, B., Boni, L., et al. (2016) · Surgical Endoscopy · doi:10.1007/s00464-016-5245-7 · Cited by 473
Diagnosis and Management of Acute Appendicitis in Adults: A Review
Moris, D., Paulson, E. K., & Pappas, T. N. (2021) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2021.20502 · Cited by 363
Metadata
- Authors
- Hansson, J., Körner, U., Khorram-Manesh, A., Solberg, A., & Lundholm, K.
- Venue
- British Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-04-08
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 473-481
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2089211239
- Cited by
- 500
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 25.15
- Type
- journal article
- 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: Randomized clinical trial of antibiotic therapy versus appendicectomy as primary treatment of acute appendicitis in unselected patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bjs.6482
- The paper
- Hansson, J., Körner, U., Khorram-Manesh, A., Solberg, A., & Lundholm, K. (2009). Randomized clinical trial of antibiotic therapy versus appendicectomy as primary treatment of acute appendicitis in unselected patients. British Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.6482
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.