It is interesting to think about CODA vs APPAC, and as noted in the paper, CODA's population included patients with "more severe appendicitis" and also included those with appendicolith, who were excluded from APPAC. While the sicker population of CODA may explain the differences in overall outcome, at least at 90 days, I wonder what happens when one compares the population subsets, looking at more similar populations.
For example, incidence of appy in APPAC antibx group was 16% (at 90 days), vs 29% in CODA (at 90 days), or more specifically, 25% when looking at those without appendicolith, which is a better comparison to APPAC. Why do you think there existed this difference in crossover rate between the trials (16% vs. 25%) even when comparing participants w/o appendicoliths, which presumably gets a closer approximation of similar populations? Is that something that can be assessed-- whether that difference is something that can be evaluated and if so, is it statistically significant and what drives that difference?
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.