The Use of Routine Blood Cultures in Pediatric Appendicitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of true-positive blood culture results in children presenting to the ED with suspected appendicitis. To describe the current practice of obtaining blood cultures in children with suspected appendicitis. METHODS: We performed a 2-year retrospective health record review of all children aged 2 through 17 years investigated for suspected appendicitis at a tertiary Pediatric Emergency Department. Subjects were identified by searching (a) institutional records for ICD-10-CA coding, (b) diagnostic imaging records of ultrasounds for appendicitis, and (c) surgical database records for nonincidental appendectomies. Abstracted demographic and clinical data were matched to regional laboratory services data to describe the performance and result of blood cultures. RESULTS: Overall, 1315 children investigated for appendicitis were reviewed. Seven hundred fifty (57.0%) were girls, the average age was 11.7 years (SD, 4.0). Blood cultures were obtained in 288 (21.9%) of 1315 patients. Of the 11 (3.8%) cultures that were positive, only 1 (0.35%) was a true positive. Young age, high triage acuity, and presence of fever were associated with the acquisition of cultures (P < 0.001 for all). The proportion of children undergoing appendectomy and the negative appendectomy rate was similar between those with and without blood culture (P = 0.10 and P = 0.96, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: True-positive blood cultures are very rare in children presenting to the ED with suspected appendicitis. Given the potential for false-positive cultures and the social/economic implications of initial testing/retesting of false positives, the use of routine blood cultures for children with suspected appendicitis is not supported.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".