Delayed Versus Early Laparoscopic Appendectomy for Adult Patients With Acute Appendicitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether delaying appendectomy until the following morning is non-inferior to immediate surgery in those with acute appendicitis presenting at night. BACKGROUND: Despite a lack of supporting evidence, those with acute appendicitis who present at night frequently have surgery delayed until the after morning. METHODS: The delay trial is a noninferiority randomized controlled trial conducted between 2018 and 22 at 2 tertiary care hospitals in Canada. Adults with imaging confirmed acute appendicitis who presented at night (8:00 pm -4:00 am ). Delaying surgery until after 6:00 am was compared with immediate surgery. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative complications. An a prior noninferiority margin of 15% was deemed clinically relevant. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-seven of the planned 140 patients were enrolled in the Delayed Versus Early Laparoscopic Appendectomy (DELAY) trial (59 in the delayed group and 68 in the immediate group). The two groups were similar at baseline. The mean time between the decision to operate and surgery was longer in the delayed group (11.0 vs 4.4 hours, P < 0.0001). The primary outcome occurred in 6/59 (10.2%) of those in the delayed group versus 15/67 (22.4%) of those in the immediate group ( P = 0.07). The difference between groups met the a priori noninferiority criteria of +15% (risk difference -12.2%, 95% CI: -24.4% to +0.4%, test of noninferiority P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The DELAY study is the first trial to assess delaying appendectomy in those with acute appendicitis. We demonstrate the noninferiority of delaying surgery until the after morning.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".