MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799639114 · doi:10.1017/cem.2018.346

P148: What do surgeons expect of the Emergency Department in the diagnosis and management of pediatric appendicitis?

2018· article· en· W2799639114 on OpenAlexaffabout
Graham C. Thompson, Sasha Selby, Grace L. Blair, Natalie Yanchar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Emergency Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAppendicitis Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentConfidence intervalOdds ratioPediatric emergency medicineAppendicitisUrinalysisEmergency medicineGeneral surgeryInternal medicineUrineEmergency physician

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The optimal diagnostic strategy for children presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) with suspected appendicitis (SA), the most common non-traumatic surgical emergency in children, remains unclear. This study aims to identify which investigations and management priorities are preferred by Canadian surgeons prior to consultation from the ED. Methods: An internet survey was extended to practicing surgeons who are members of the Canadian Association of Pediatric Surgeons and Canadian Association of General Surgeons. Three case-based scenarios evaluated surgeons expected ED investigations and management for SA with varying severity of disease (simple - SA vs perforated - PA) and sex (male vs female). Differences across scenarios were determined by ANOVA and direct comparisons were reported using proportions and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Results: Surveys were completed by 82 surgeons. Across the 3 cases, CBC (227/246, 92.3%) and urinalysis (188/246, 76.4%) were the sole investigations expected in >75% of responses. Expectations differed across cases for use of blood cultures (p<0.001), electrolytes (p<0.001), sexually transmitted infection testing (0.015) and ultrasound (US) (p<0.001). Blood cultures (26/82, 31.7% vs 4/82, 4.9%; OR 9.05 95%CI 2.88-37.33) and electrolytes (58/82, 70.7% vs 33/82, 40.2%; OR 3.59 95%CI 1.79-7.24) were expected more often in severe disease. US was expected more often in females (58/82,70.7% vs 25/82, 30.5%; OR 5.51, 95% CI 2.68-11.38). Expected management differed across cases for fluid boluses (p=0.01), intravenous (IV) analgesia (p<0.001) and antibiotics (p<0.001), with all differences attributed to severity of illness (fluids 73/82, 89.0% vs 59/82, 72.0% OR 3.16 95%CI 1.28-8.33; IV analgesia 66/82, 80.5% vs 42/82, 51.2% OR 3.93 95%CI 1.86-8.45; antibiotics 44/82, 53.7% vs 10/82, 12.2% OR 8.34 95%CI 3.59-20.44). Conclusion: Severity of illness and sex of the child impact the ED investigations and management expected by surgeons consulted for suspected appendicitis. Further research focusing on how these expectations influence patient outcomes should be conducted. Collaborative ED-surgery protocols for the diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis in children should be established.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Emergency MedicineSame topicAppendicitis Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207