The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Appendectomy: A Contemporary Appraisal
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: The authors present an accurate and comprehensive snapshot of appendicitis and the practice of appendectomy in the 1990s. METHODS: Appendectomies were performed on 4950 patients in 147 Department of Defense hospitals worldwide over a 12-month period ending January 31, 1993. RESULTS: The median age was 23 years (range, 6 months to 82 years) with 64% males and 36% females. The patients were assigned a diagnosis of normal appendix in 632 (13%) cases, acute appendicitis in 3286 (66%) cases, and perforated appendicitis in 1032 (21%) cases. There were no differences in perforation and normal appendix rates between those operations performed in teaching hospitals versus community hospitals or between high-volume hospitals (> or = 100 appendectomies/year) versus low-volume hospitals. Both a preoperative temperature > or = 100.5 and a preoperative leukocyte count > or = 10,000 were incapable of discriminating between patients with appendicitis and those with a normal appendix. Multivariate analysis showed a significantly increased risk of perforation associated with age younger than or equal to 8 years (38% vs. 18%) and age older than or equal to 45 years (49% vs. 18%). Females had a significantly higher rate of normal appendices (19% vs. 9%) and a lower rate of perforation (18% vs. 23%). The complication rates to include reoperation and intraabdominal sepsis were markedly increased in those patients with perforation. There were four deaths in this series (0.08%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a marked decline in associated mortality over the past 50 years, rates of perforation and negative appendectomy remain unchanged because they are influenced strongly by factors untouched by the intervening technologic advances.
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
The Natural History of Appendicitis in Adults A Prospective Study
Temple, C. L., Huchcroft, S. A., & Temple, W. J. (1995) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000658-199503000-00010 · Cited by 338
A prospective randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy.
Attwood, S. E. A., Hill, A. D. K., Murphy, P. G., Thornton, J., & Stephens, R. B. (1992) · PubMed · Cited by 285
Acute appendicitis: a clinical study of 1018 cases of emergency appendectomy.
PIEPER, R., Kager, L., & Näsman, P. (1982) · PubMed · Cited by 173
Laparoscopic Versus Conventional Appendectomy
Vallina, V. L., Velasco, J. M., & McCulloch, C. S. (1993) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000658-199321850-00016 · Cited by 152
Cited by
Appendicitis at the Millennium
Birnbaum, B. A., & Wilson, S. R. (2000) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.215.2.r00ma24337 · Cited by 631
How time affects the risk of rupture in appendicitis
Bickell, N. A., Aufses, A. H., Rojas, M., & Bodian, C. (2006) · Journal of the American College of Surgeons · doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2005.11.016 · Cited by 370
Methamphetamine use and schizophrenia: A population-based cohort study in California
Callaghan, R. C., Cunningham, J. K., Allebeck, P., Arenovich, T., Sajeev, G., Remington, G., Boileau, I., & Kish, S. J. (2012) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.10070937 · Cited by 150
Metadata
- Authors
- Hale, D. A., Molloy, M., Pearl, R. H., Schutt, D. C., & Jaques, D. P.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 1997-03
- Volume
- 225
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 252-261
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1965920149
- Cited by
- 354
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 18.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Appendectomy: A Contemporary Appraisal. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00000658-199703000-00003
- The paper
- Hale, D. A., Molloy, M., Pearl, R. H., Schutt, D. C., & Jaques, D. P. (1997). Appendectomy: A Contemporary Appraisal. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199703000-00003
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.