Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 354

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 access
Hale, Douglas A., Molloy, Mark, Pearl, Richard H., Schutt, David C., Jaques, David P.·1997·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00000658-199703000-00003

Cites

4 of 4 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

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 354

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.