FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1838928051> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1838928051 endingPage "1231" @default.
• W1838928051 startingPage "1231.2" @default.
• W1838928051 abstract "To the Editor. In the September 1999 issue of Pediatrics, Garcia Peña et al1 review their experience in using computed tomography (CT) to aid in the diagnosis of suspected cases of appendicitis. They conclude that any of a variety of strategies employed using CT scans resulted in reduced costs and improved diagnosis, management, and outcome for children with appendicitis. The authors should be complimented for a rigorous examination of data from a large series of patients. The study has generated considerable attention in the lay press, with Time magazine among others reporting on the diagnostic value of CT scanning in possible cases of appendicitis in children. As a pediatric surgeon, I have had several families inquire since the publication of this article about whether I would be ordering a CT scan on their child who was being evaluated for appendicitis.The diagnosis of appendicitis in childhood can be an extremely difficult one to make, and the ability to use CT scanning to assist in making that diagnosis is apparent from the data in the article. I feel less certain, however, that the article justifies the routine use of CT scans for all equivocal cases of suspected appendicitis. In particular, a large part of the conclusion is based on cost savings, increased diagnostic accuracy, and shorter hospital stays, which are figured using a normal appendectomy rate of 23.2%. Although the authors allude to false-negative rates of up to 45% (in adult patients) with the clinical diagnosis2,3 and up to 20% in children with acute appendicitis seen in the emergency setting,4–7these figures may substantially exceed the rate seen in settings where the early involvement of experienced pediatric surgical personnel is obtained. In particular, I would refer the authors to another of their own citations, the series of Putnam, Gagliano, and Emmens.8 Over a 5-year period in an era that predated the routine use (or availability) of either CT or ultrasound to assist in diagnosis, they had a negative appendectomy rate of 1.7% (7 of 406 operations). I wonder how the conclusions of the article would be altered if a negative appendectomy rate of 1.7% was used in place of the 23.2%. Regardless, the series of Putnam et al supports the concept that the clinical acumen of a pediatric surgeon can be superior to CT scanning (whose sensitivity and specificity was only 97%).Additionally, several other issues bear mentioning related to the conclusions drawn. The technique of CT scanning employed used administration of oral gastrograffin. My experience in evaluating patients with possible appendicitis would indicate that a high percentage are vomiting at the time of presentation and thus might tolerate oral gastrograffin very poorly and even be at risk for aspirating it. Also, the availability to get a CT scan performed expeditiously and read by a staff radiologist within a few hours of presentation is probably not routine in many teaching hospitals. Variance of standards of care here would also diminish the efficacy of using CT in the emergency setting.My own sentiment is that CT scanning in the emergency setting in assisting in diagnosing appendicitis has a role, but it should be a highly selective one, which should be used only after an experienced pediatric surgeon has had the chance to exercise his or her clinical judgment.In Reply. We reported in these pages the results of a retrospective chart review and decision analysis of children admitted from 1996 to 1997 for suspected appendicitis.1 We found that several strategies using CT with intravenous and oral contrast both reduced costs and improved outcomes for children with suspected appendicitis. We subsequently performed a prospective cohort study from July to December 1999 evaluating the use of a clinical practice protocol involving ultrasonography and computed tomography with rectal contrast to diagnose appendicitis in children with equivocal presentations.2 This ultrasound-CT protocol demonstrated a 94% accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.In our model, we used a 23% negative appendectomy rate based on our retrospective review. Dr Lawrence states that the published figures of 20% in the literature substantially exceed the rate seen in settings where early involvement of a pediatric surgeon is obtained. Besides the Putnam article,3 we can find no other studies to support this. Instead, published articles on acute appendicitis report established negative appendectomy rates between 10% and 20%.4–7 In addition, previous reports have demonstrated that the sensitivity of clinical diagnosis by surgeons for acute appendicitis is as low as 63%8 and has never approached the 97% sensitivity for CT scan that we found in our model. Our prospective study confirms this high sensitivity.2Dr Lawrence is absolutely correct that children tolerate oral gastrograffin very poorly. However, the children in our clinical practice protocol that we studied prospectively received rectal contrast only.2 Dr Lawrence's comments about the availability of staff radiologists to interpret the radiographic imaging studies are more appropriate to situations relying on ultrasound rather than CT. At our institution, staff radiologists are available to interpret studies during the day and the fellows, under the supervision of the staff, interpret the studies at night. CT with rectal contrast is easy to perform and interpret and is quickly learned by radiologists-in-training. In addition, CT is not nearly so operator-dependent as is ultrasound for diagnosing appendicitis.We fully agree with Dr Lawrence that the evaluation of children with suspected appendicitis, whether or not CT scans are used, should be made in consultation with an experienced pediatric surgeon. In this manner, we might be able to decrease both our negative appendectomy and perforation rates as well as to decrease the costs involved with in-hospital observation time." @default.
• W1838928051 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1838928051 creator A5039974567 @default.
• W1838928051 date "2001-05-01" @default.
• W1838928051 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W1838928051 title "Computed Tomography in Diagnosing Suspected Appendicitis" @default.
• W1838928051 cites W179339818 @default.
• W1838928051 cites W2002874382 @default.
• W1838928051 cites W2003091333 @default.
• W1838928051 cites W2010322674 @default.
• W1838928051 cites W2044077051 @default.
• W1838928051 cites W2049173585 @default.
• W1838928051 cites W2083156034 @default.
• W1838928051 cites W2089101007 @default.
• W1838928051 cites W2089255096 @default.
• W1838928051 cites W2111973886 @default.
• W1838928051 cites W222936330 @default.
• W1838928051 cites W2401997193 @default.
• W1838928051 doi "https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.107.5.1231b" @default.
• W1838928051 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11388319" @default.
• W1838928051 hasPublicationYear "2001" @default.
• W1838928051 type Work @default.
• W1838928051 sameAs 1838928051 @default.
• W1838928051 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W1838928051 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1838928051 hasAuthorship W1838928051A5039974567 @default.
• W1838928051 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W1838928051 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W1838928051 hasConcept C2776364125 @default.
• W1838928051 hasConcept C2780016130 @default.
• W1838928051 hasConcept C3018581240 @default.
• W1838928051 hasConcept C3020132585 @default.
• W1838928051 hasConcept C544519230 @default.
• W1838928051 hasConcept C61434518 @default.
• W1838928051 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1838928051 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W1838928051 hasConceptScore W1838928051C126838900 @default.
• W1838928051 hasConceptScore W1838928051C151730666 @default.
• W1838928051 hasConceptScore W1838928051C2776364125 @default.
• W1838928051 hasConceptScore W1838928051C2780016130 @default.
• W1838928051 hasConceptScore W1838928051C3018581240 @default.
• W1838928051 hasConceptScore W1838928051C3020132585 @default.
• W1838928051 hasConceptScore W1838928051C544519230 @default.
• W1838928051 hasConceptScore W1838928051C61434518 @default.
• W1838928051 hasConceptScore W1838928051C71924100 @default.
• W1838928051 hasConceptScore W1838928051C86803240 @default.
• W1838928051 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W1838928051 hasLocation W18389280511 @default.
• W1838928051 hasLocation W18389280512 @default.
• W1838928051 hasOpenAccess W1838928051 @default.
• W1838928051 hasPrimaryLocation W18389280511 @default.
• W1838928051 hasRelatedWork W2116315932 @default.
• W1838928051 hasRelatedWork W2161864603 @default.
• W1838928051 hasRelatedWork W2346472889 @default.
• W1838928051 hasRelatedWork W2377231963 @default.
• W1838928051 hasRelatedWork W2378633438 @default.
• W1838928051 hasRelatedWork W2389606691 @default.
• W1838928051 hasRelatedWork W2754004248 @default.
• W1838928051 hasRelatedWork W2951143959 @default.
• W1838928051 hasRelatedWork W4317816533 @default.
• W1838928051 hasRelatedWork W4290334904 @default.
• W1838928051 hasVolume "107" @default.
• W1838928051 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1838928051 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1838928051 magId "1838928051" @default.
• W1838928051 workType "article" @default.