Early versus delayed laparoscopic appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of laparoscopic appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis remains uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare operative and safety outcomes following early versus delayed laparoscopic appendectomy in adults. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through October 2024 for randomized and cohort studies. Six studies (one RCT, five cohorts) including 2,429 patients were analyzed. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane tools. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan and R (meta/metafor). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in operative time (mean difference − 2.3 min) or postoperative length of stay (− 0.7 days). Rates of perforation (RR 0.87), mortality (RR 0.87), surgical-site infection (RR 0.98), overall complications (RR 0.94), and 30-day readmission (RR 1.16) were comparable between groups. Cohort studies were of high quality, while the single RCT showed minor bias concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Our Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis produced comparable operative and safety outcomes between early and delayed appendectomy, indicating that a delay in operation of 8 h, due to logistics issues, can be acceptable in terms of clinical outcomes. This recommendation can be solidified via further randomized controlled trials and larger umbrella reviews.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 it