The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials Comparing Antibiotic Therapy with Appendectomy for Acute Uncomplicated (No Abscess or Phlegmon) Appendicitis
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and morbidity of the management of acute uncomplicated (no abscess or phlegmon) appendicitis by antibiotics versus appendectomy. METHODS: Appropriate trials were identified. The seven outcome variables were overall complication rate, treatment failure rate for index hospital admission, overall treatment failure rate, length of stay (LOS), utilization of pain medication, duration of pain, and sick leave. Both fixed and random effects meta-analyses were performed using odds ratios (ORs) and weighted or standardized mean differences (WMDs or SMDs, respectively). RESULTS: Five trials totaling 980 patients (antibiotics=510, appendectomy=470) were analyzed. In three of the seven outcome analyses, the summary point estimates favored antibiotics over appendectomy, with a 46% reduction in the relative odds of complications (OR 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37, 0.78; p=0.001); a reduction in sick leave/disability (SMD -0.19; CI -0.33, -0.06; p=0.005), and decreased pain medication utilization (SMD -1.55; CI -1.96, -1.14; p<0.0001). For overall treatment failure, the summary point estimate favored appendectomy, with a 40.2% failure rate for antibiotics versus 8.5% for appendectomy (OR 6.72; CI 0.08, 12.99; p<0.001). Initial treatment failure, LOS, and pain duration were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Non-operative management of uncomplicated appendicitis with antibiotics was associated with significantly fewer complications, better pain control, and shorter sick leave, but overall had inferior efficacy because of the high rate of recurrence in comparison with appendectomy.
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
Higgins, J. P., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2008) · Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions · doi:10.1002/9780470712184.ch16 · Cited by 475 · cited 1×
“Pooled estimates of effect therefore were calculated using Peto’s odds ratios, because simulation studies have shown that this measure is most robust when events are rare and the numbers of patients in the control and the experimental groups are similar [27].”
Cited by
Salminen, P., Paajanen, H., Rautio, T., Nordström, P., Aarnio, M., Rantanen, T., Tuominen, R., Hurme, S., Virtanen, J., Mecklin, J.-P., et al. (2015) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2015.6154 · Cited by 817
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
Yu, C.-W., Juan, L.-I., Wu, M.-H., Shen, C.-J., Wu, J.-Y., & Lee, C.-C. (2013) · Journal of British Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.9008 · Cited by 351
Di Saverio, S., Sibilio, A., Giorgini, E., Biscardi, A., Villani, S., Coccolini, F., Smerieri, N., Pisano, M., Ansaloni, L., Sartelli, M., et al. (2014) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000000560 · Cited by 273
Metadata
- Authors
- Mason, R. J., Moazzez, A., Sohn, H., & Katkhouda, N.
- Venue
- Surgical Infections
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-04
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 74-84
- ISSN
- 1096-2964 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-8674
- OpenAlex
- W2015440910
- Cited by
- 162
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.93
- 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: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials Comparing Antibiotic Therapy with Appendectomy for Acute Uncomplicated (No Abscess or Phlegmon) Appendicitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1089/sur.2011.058
- The paper
- Mason, R. J., Moazzez, A., Sohn, H., & Katkhouda, N. (2012). Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials Comparing Antibiotic Therapy with Appendectomy for Acute Uncomplicated (No Abscess or Phlegmon) Appendicitis. Surgical Infections. https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2011.058
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.