2020
DOI: 10.14744/tjtes.2020.60344
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Determination of factors predicting acute appendicitis and perforated appendicitis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

2
43
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
43
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, in gender-based evaluation, TBIL levels were signi cantly higher in male patients both in PA and NA groups. In a study by Akbulut et al, a TBIL cut-off ≥ 0.67 is an independent factor predicting acute appendicitis (27). Therefore, our study supports the latest literature in line with our ndings.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…However, in gender-based evaluation, TBIL levels were signi cantly higher in male patients both in PA and NA groups. In a study by Akbulut et al, a TBIL cut-off ≥ 0.67 is an independent factor predicting acute appendicitis (27). Therefore, our study supports the latest literature in line with our ndings.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…However, TBIL levels were within the normal range in both groups. In a study by Akbulut et al, a TBIL cut-off ≥ 0.67 is an independent factor predicting acute appendicitis (27). However, we could not nd any study in the literature investigating the relationship between TBIL and acute appendicitis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 60%
“…Temple et al, in a prospective study, showed that late admission to hospital was associated with higher perforation rates. Accordingly, the longer the patients wait to go to the hospital, the higher the probability of perforation [ 21 ]. Moreover, following this finding, a higher proportion of patients who underwent an appendectomy at post-COVID-19 period presented complicated appendicitis (8.0% vs. 42.5%, p<0.001) in a study by Cano-Valderrama et al [ 22 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%