The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy in Children: A Meta-Analysis
Open accessAbstract
In Brief Objective: This study aims to use meta-analysis to compare laparoscopic and open appendectomy in a pediatric population. Summary Background Data: Meta-analysis is a statistical tool that can be used to evaluate the literature in both qualitative and quantitative ways, accounting for variations in characteristics that can influence overall estimate of outcomes of interest. Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in a pediatric population has not previously been performed. Methods: Comparative studies published between 1992 and 2004 of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in children were included. Endpoints were postoperative pyrexia, ileus, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess formation, operative time, and postoperative hospital stay. Results: Twenty-three studies including 6477 children (43% laparoscopic, 57% open) were included. Wound infection was significantly reduced with laparoscopic versus open appendectomy (1.5% versus 5%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27–0.75), as was ileus (1.3% versus 2.8%; OR = 0.5, 95% CI, 0.29–0.86). Intra-abdominal abscess formation was more common following laparoscopic surgery, although this was not statistically significant. Subgroup analysis of randomized trials did not reveal significant difference between the 2 techniques in any of the 4 complications. Operative time was not significantly longer in the laparoscopic group, and postoperative stay was significantly shorter (weighted mean difference, −0.48; 95% CI, −0.65 to −0.31). Sensitivity analysis identified lowest heterogeneity when only randomized studies were considered, followed by prospective, recent, and finally large studies. Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that laparoscopic appendectomy in children reduces complications. However, we also see the need for further high-quality randomized trials comparing the 2 techniques, matched not only for age and sex but also for obesity and severity of appendicitis. This study uses meta-analytic techniques to compare laparoscopic and open appendectomy in children. Twenty-three comparative studies, including 6477 children (43% laparoscopic, 57% open) published between 1992 and 2004 were included. Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with reduced incidence of wound infection, ileus, and length of stay when compared with open surgery in a pediatric population.
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
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Statistical Aspects of the Analysis of Data From Retrospective Studies of Disease
(1959) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/22.4.719 · Cited by 14,689
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826
Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: An overview of the randomized trials
Yusuf, S., Peto, R., Lewis, J., Collins, R., & Sleight, P. (1985) · Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases · doi:10.1016/s0033-0620(85)80003-7 · Cited by 3,205
Semm, K. (1983) · Endoscopy · doi:10.1055/s-2007-1021466 · Cited by 1,151
Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy: A Metaanalysis
Golub, R., Siddiqui, F., & Pohl, D. (1998) · Journal of the American College of Surgeons · doi:10.1016/s1072-7515(98)00080-5 · Cited by 354
A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy
Chung, R. S., Rowland, D. Y., Li, P., & Diaz, J. (1999) · The American Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0002-9610(99)00017-3 · Cited by 303
Newman, K., Ponsky, T., Kittle, K., Dyk, L., Throop, C., Gieseker, K., Sills, M., & Gilbert, J. (2003) · Journal of Pediatric Surgery · doi:10.1053/jpsu.2003.50111 · Cited by 240
Temple, L. K. F., Litwin, D., & McLeod, R. S. (1999) · PubMed · Cited by 154
Cited by
Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis
Jaschinski, T., Mosch, C. G., Eikermann, M., Neugebauer, E. A., & Sauerland, S. (2018) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001546.pub4 · Cited by 1,016
Metadata
- Authors
- Aziz, O., Athanasiou, T., Tekkis, P. P., Purkayastha, S., Haddow, J., Malinovski, V., Paraskeva, P., & Darzi, A.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 2006-01
- Volume
- 243
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 17-27
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2090905163
- Cited by
- 332
- References
- 15
- FWCI
- 12.18
- 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: Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy in Children: A Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.sla.0000193602.74417.14
- The paper
- Aziz, O., Athanasiou, T., Tekkis, P. P., Purkayastha, S., Haddow, J., Malinovski, V., Paraskeva, P., & Darzi, A. (2006). Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy in Children: A Meta-Analysis. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000193602.74417.14
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.