Outcomes of Daytime and Night-Time Appendectomies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis is a common surgical emergency characterized by appendix inflammation. Surgery remains the gold standard for treatment with laparoscopy gaining in popularity. However, the optimal timing for appendectomy remains unclear. We are not aware of studies evaluating potential differences in clinical outcomes among appendectomies performed during the daytime and at night. METHODS: We followed the PRISMA guidelines and searched the ScienceDirect, Medline, and Google Scholar databases for studies published in English before June 2023. We included prospective and retrospective studies reporting appendectomy outcomes. We categorized the appendectomy procedure times as daytime or night-time based on each study's definitions. We extracted baseline characteristics and outcomes and assessed the quality of the studies included using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) using random-effects models; and, we assessed heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 12 studies for systematic review ( n =19,183) including daytime ( n =11,839) and night-time ( n =7344) appendectomies. For the meta-analysis, we included 9 studies, that evaluated outcomes such as mortality (pooled RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.09-2.01; I2 =43.7%; P =0.11), hospital stay (WMD, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.20; I2 =93.3%; P <0.001), and complications (pooled RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.64-1.45; I2 =65.1%; P =0.02). We found similar mortality rates, hospital stay lengths, and complications for the appendectomies, regardless of the time of day of the operation. The baseline characteristics of the patients were also similar, except for the duration of symptoms and the presence of an appendiceal abscess. CONCLUSION: Our results showed that the timing of an appendectomy (daytime vs. night-time) does not significantly affect its outcomes. Surgeon availability or fatigue, and patient severity may not significantly impact the operation results. Standardized protocols and perioperative care ensure consistent outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".