Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 162

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

Mason, Rodney J., Moazzez, Ashkan, Sohn, Helen, Katkhouda, Namir·2012·Surgical Infections

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/sur.2011.058

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

  • Special topics in statistics

    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].”

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 162

Metadata

Authors
Mason, R. J., Moazzez, A., Sohn, H., & Katkhouda, N.
Venue
Surgical Infections
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.