The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Introduction of Appendiceal CT: Impact on Negative Appendectomy and Appendiceal Perforation Rates
Open accessAbstract
UNLABELLED: OBJECTIVE To evaluate the impact of appendiceal computed tomography (CT) availability on negative appendectomy and appendiceal perforation rates. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Appendiceal CT is 98% accurate. However, its impact on negative appendectomy and appendiceal perforation rates has not been reported. METHODS: The authors reviewed the medical records of 493 consecutive patients who underwent appendectomy between 1992 and 1995, 209 consecutive patients who underwent appendectomy in 1997 (59% of whom had appendiceal CT), and 206 patients who underwent appendiceal CT in 1997 without subsequent appendectomy. RESULTS: Before appendiceal CT, 98/493 patients (20%) taken to surgery had a normal appendix. After CT availability, 15/209 patients (7%) taken to surgery had a normal appendix; 7 patients did not have CT, 5 patients had surgery despite a negative CT, and 3 patients had a false-positive CT. Negative appendectomy rates were lowered overall (20% to 7%), in men (11% to 5%), in women (35% to 11%), in boys (10% to 5%), and in girls (18% to 12%). Appendiceal perforation rates dropped from 22% to 14% after CT availability. CT excluded appendicitis in 206 patients in 1997 who avoided appendectomy and identified alternative diagnoses in 105 of these patients (51%). CONCLUSION: The availability of appendiceal CT coincided with a drop in the negative appendectomy rate from 20% to 7% in all patients, and to only 3% in patients with a positive CT. Perforation rates decreased from 22% to 14%. Appendiceal CT can be advocated in nearly all female and many male patients.
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
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
Has Misdiagnosis of Appendicitis Decreased Over Time?: A Population-Based Analysis
Flum, D. R., Morris, A., Koepsell, T., & Dellinger, E. P. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.286.14.1748 · Cited by 498
The Clinical and Economic Correlates of Misdiagnosed Appendicitis: Nationwide Analysis
Flum, D. R., & Koepsell, T. (2002) · Archives of Surgery · doi:10.1001/archsurg.137.7.799 · Cited by 411
Metadata
- Authors
- Rao, P. M., Rhea, J. T., Rattner, D. W., Venus, L. G., & Novelline, R. A.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 1999-03
- Volume
- 229
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 344-349
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2066621568
- Cited by
- 282
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.58
- 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: Introduction of Appendiceal CT: Impact on Negative Appendectomy and Appendiceal Perforation Rates. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00000658-199903000-00007
- The paper
- Rao, P. M., Rhea, J. T., Rattner, D. W., Venus, L. G., & Novelline, R. A. (1999). Introduction of Appendiceal CT: Impact on Negative Appendectomy and Appendiceal Perforation Rates. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199903000-00007
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.