Interesting that perforation was not excluded in the CODA trial and there was a 16% incidence noted in the appendectomy group, with a comparatively higher percentage (32%) in the antibiotic group who eventually underwent appendectomy. First question is why perforation was chosen to be included and whether this was done to more accurately reflect true incidence in the population with appendicitis. Second, would you attribute risk of perforation in the antibiotic group solely due to presence of appendicolith, as the data in the trial suggests (61 to 24% for those with an appendicolith vs 14 to 13% without)? Since it is possible that some patients who had perforation but could not have pathologic certainty (as they did not undergo appendectomy), I wonder if you believe future studies examining perforation in a similar manner to how the CODA trial analyzed appendicolith would yield valuable clinical insights?
Easy one-click social registrationIs this safe?
We only receive the minimum information necessary to verify your account. We never get access to your friends/contacts or your profile, and we never post on your behalf. Your social account is used for logging in only.ORRegister via email
Send me updates on this Contest
In order to ensure a fair voting process and to make sure that no one votes more than once, we ask that you register either with a social networking account (easiest, only requires one click) or by registering with your email address (this will require you to click on a verification email that we will send you).
You only need to register once.