Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2021 Feb;25(10):1–192. doi: 10.3310/hta25100

Conservative treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis in children: the CONTRACT feasibility study, including feasibility RCT.

Nigel J Hall, Frances C Sherratt, Simon Eaton, Isabel Reading, Erin Walker, Maria Chorozoglou, Lucy Beasant, Wendy Wood, Michael Stanton, Harriet J Corbett, Dean Rex, Natalie Hutchings, Elizabeth Dixon, Simon Grist, William Van't Hoff, Esther Crawley, Jane Blazeby, Bridget Young
PMCID: PMC7958256  PMID: 33630732

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Although non-operative treatment is known to be effective for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children, randomised trial data comparing important outcomes of non-operative treatment with those of appendicectomy are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to ascertain the feasibility of conducting a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a non-operative treatment pathway with appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children.

DESIGN

This was a mixed-methods study, which included a feasibility randomised controlled trial, embedded and parallel qualitative and survey studies, a parallel health economic feasibility study and the development of a core outcome set.

SETTING

This study was set in three specialist NHS paediatric surgical units in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Children (aged 4-15 years) clinically diagnosed with uncomplicated acute appendicitis participated in the feasibility randomised controlled trial. Children, their families, recruiting clinicians and other health-care professionals involved in caring for children with appendicitis took part in the qualitative study. UK specialist paediatric surgeons took part in the survey. Specialist paediatric surgeons, adult general surgeons who treat children, and children and young people who previously had appendicitis, along with their families, took part in the development of the core outcome set.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants in the feasibility randomised controlled trial were randomised to a non-operative treatment pathway (broad-spectrum antibiotics and active observation) or appendicectomy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the proportion of eligible patients recruited to the feasibility trial.

DATA SOURCES

Data were sourced from NHS case notes, questionnaire responses, transcribed audio-recordings of recruitment discussions and qualitative interviews.

RESULTS

Overall, 50% (95% confidence interval 40% to 59%) of 115 eligible patients approached about the trial agreed to participate and were randomised. There was high acceptance of randomisation and good adherence to trial procedures and follow-up (follow-up rates of 89%, 85% and 85% at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months, respectively). More participants had perforated appendicitis than had been anticipated. Qualitative work enabled us to communicate about the trial effectively with patients and families, to design and deliver bespoke training to optimise recruitment and to understand how to optimise the design and delivery of a future trial. The health economic study indicated that the main cost drivers are the ward stay cost and the cost of the operation; it has also informed quality-of-life assessment methods for future work. A core outcome set for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children and young people was developed, containing 14 outcomes. There is adequate surgeon interest to justify proceeding to an effectiveness trial, with 51% of those surveyed expressing a willingness to recruit with an unchanged trial protocol.

LIMITATIONS

Because the feasibility randomised controlled trial was performed in only three centres, successful recruitment across a larger number of sites cannot be guaranteed. However, the qualitative work has informed a bespoke training package to facilitate this. Although survey results suggest adequate clinician interest to make a larger trial possible, actual participation may differ, and equipoise may have changed over time.

CONCLUSIONS

A future effectiveness trial is feasible, following limited additional preparation, to establish appropriate outcome measures and case identification. It is recommended to include a limited package of qualitative work to optimise recruitment, in particular at new centres.

FUTURE WORK

Prior to proceeding to an effectiveness trial, there is a need to develop a robust method for distinguishing children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis from those with more advanced appendicitis, and to reach agreement on a primary outcome measure and effect size that is acceptable to all stakeholder groups involved.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15830435.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Plain language summary

Appendicitis is usually treated with an operation to remove the appendix. But we have learned, from other research, that some children with appendicitis may not need an operation, and could be treated with antibiotics instead. To find out how these two different treatments compare with one another, we need to do a big study. First, though, we need to see if doing that kind of study would even be possible (or ‘feasible’). We carried out a feasibility study that had several parts. First, we did a small study with children who had appendicitis, whereby children were randomly allocated to have either antibiotics or an operation, with an equal chance of having either treatment. Second, we asked parents and health-care staff about why they wanted, or did not want, to take part in that small study. This helped us to understand how to make a bigger future study as acceptable as possible to children, families and surgeons. Third, we asked parents, patients and surgeons what they think are the most important things – or ‘outcomes’ – we should look at in future research on children who have appendicitis. From that, we developed a list of outcomes that should be included in our future big study, so we can be certain that the research we do is likely to help parents and surgeons. Overall, we established that a future big study is feasible and we have plenty of information to help us with how to plan it best, so that it has the greatest possible chance of success. We were also guided in all of these steps of the research by a group of parents, children and young people, some of whom had appendicitis and some of whom did not.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. St Peter SD, Tsao K, Spilde TL, Holcomb GW, Sharp SW, Murphy JP, et al. Single daily dosing ceftriaxone and metronidazole vs standard triple antibiotic regimen for perforated appendicitis in children: a prospective randomized trial. J Pediatr Surg 2008;43:981–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2008.02.018 doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2008.02.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Bowers WF, Hughes CW, Bonilla KB. The treatment of acute appendicitis under suboptimal conditions. U S Armed Forces Med J 1958;9:1545–57. [PubMed]
  3. Varadhan KK, Neal KR, Lobo DN. Safety and efficacy of antibiotics compared with appendicectomy for treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2012;344:e2156. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e2156 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e2156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  4. Vons C, Barry C, Maitre S, Pautrat K, Leconte M, Costaglioli B, et al. Amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid versus appendicectomy for treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis: an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011;377:1573–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60410-8 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60410-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  5. Styrud J, Eriksson S, Nilsson I, Ahlberg G, Haapaniemi S, Neovius G, et al. Appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment in acute appendicitis. a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial. World J Surg 2006;30:1033–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-0304-6 doi: 10.1007/s00268-005-0304-6. [DOI] [PubMed]
  6. Hansson J, Körner U, Khorram-Manesh A, Solberg A, Lundholm K. Randomized clinical trial of antibiotic therapy versus appendicectomy as primary treatment of acute appendicitis in unselected patients. Br J Surg 2009;96:473–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.6482 doi: 10.1002/bjs.6482. [DOI] [PubMed]
  7. Eriksson S, Granström L. Randomized controlled trial of appendicectomy versus antibiotic therapy for acute appendicitis. Br J Surg 1995;82:166–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800820207 doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800820207. [DOI] [PubMed]
  8. Mason RJ. Surgery for appendicitis: is it necessary? Surg Infect 2008;9:481–8. https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2007.079 doi: 10.1089/sur.2007.079. [DOI] [PubMed]
  9. Ansaloni L, Catena F, Coccolini F, Ercolani G, Gazzotti F, Pasqualini E, Pinna AD. Surgery versus conservative antibiotic treatment in acute appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Dig Surg 2011;28:210–21. https://doi.org/10.1159/000324595 doi: 10.1159/000324595. [DOI] [PubMed]
  10. Liu K, Fogg L. Use of antibiotics alone for treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgery 2011;150:673–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2011.08.018 doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2011.08.018. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Minneci PC, Sulkowski JP, Nacion KM, Mahida JB, Cooper JN, Moss RL, Deans KJ. Feasibility of a nonoperative management strategy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children. J Am Coll Surg 2014;219:272–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.02.031 doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.02.031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  12. Gorter RR, van der Lee JH, Cense HA, Kneepkens CM, Wijnen MH, In ‘t Hof KH, et al. Initial antibiotic treatment for acute simple appendicitis in children is safe: short-term results from a multicenter, prospective cohort study. Surgery 2015;157:916–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2015.01.008 doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2015.01.008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. Svensson JF, Patkova B, Almström M, Naji H, Hall NJ, Eaton S, et al. Nonoperative treatment with antibiotics versus surgery for acute nonperforated appendicitis in children: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2015;261:67–71. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000835 doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000835. [DOI] [PubMed]
  14. Barsness KA, Bensard DD, Partrick DA, Calkins CM, Hendrickson RJ, Banerjee A, McIntyre RC. IL-1beta induces an exaggerated pro- and anti-inflammatory response in peritoneal macrophages of children compared with adults. Pediatr Surg Int 2004;20:238–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-003-1118-y doi: 10.1007/s00383-003-1118-y. [DOI] [PubMed]
  15. Barsness KA, Bensard DD, Partrick DA, Calkins CM, Hendrickson RJ, McIntyre RC. Endotoxin induces an exaggerated interleukin-10 response in peritoneal macrophages of children compared with adults. J Pediatr Surg 2004;39:912–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2004.02.009 doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2004.02.009. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. Georgiou R, Eaton S, Stanton MP, Pierro A, Hall NJ. Efficacy and safety of nonoperative treatment for acute appendicitis: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2017;139:e20163003. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-3003 doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-3003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  17. Abeş M, Petik B, Kazil S. Nonoperative treatment of acute appendicitis in children. J Pediatr Surg 2007;42:1439–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2007.03.049 doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2007.03.049. [DOI] [PubMed]
  18. Armstrong J, Merritt N, Jones S, Scott L, Butter A. Non-operative management of early, acute appendicitis in children: is it safe and effective? J Pediatr Surg 2014;49:782–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2014.02.071 doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2014.02.071. [DOI] [PubMed]
  19. Gorter RR, van der Lee JH, Heijsters FACJ, Cense HA, Bakx R, Kneepkens CMF, et al. Outcome of initially nonoperative treatment for acute simple appendicitis in children. J Pediatr Surg 2018;53:1849–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2017.12.012 doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2017.12.012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  20. Steiner Z, Buklan G, Stackievicz R, Gutermacher M, Erez I. A role for conservative antibiotic treatment in early appendicitis in children. J Pediatr Surg 2015;50:1566–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2015.04.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2015.04.008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. Alvarado A. A practical score for the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med 1986;15:557–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0644(86)80993-3 doi: 10.1016/S0196-0644(86)80993-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  22. Hutchings N, Wood W, Reading I, Walker E, Blazeby JM, van’t Hoff W, et al. CONTRACT Study – CONservative TReatment of Appendicitis in Children (feasibility): study protocol for a randomised controlled Trial. Trials 2018;19:153. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2520-z doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2520-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  23. Equator Network. SPIRIT Extension for Trials in Child Health: SPIRIT-C. URL: www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials-protocols/#35 (accessed 14 February 2020).
  24. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ Open 2010;340:c332. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c332 doi: 10.1136/bmj.c332. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  25. von Niederhäusern B, Saccilotto R, Schädelin S, Ziesenitz V, Benkert P, Decker ML, et al. Validity of mobile electronic data capture in clinical studies: a pilot study in a pediatric population. BMC Med Res Methodol 2017;17:163. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0438-x doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0438-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  26. Singer E, Ye C. The use and effects of incentives in surveys. Ann Am Acad Political Soc Sci 2013;645:112–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212458082 doi: 10.1177/0002716212458082. [DOI]
  27. Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, Diguiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, et al. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;3:MR000008. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub4 doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  28. Brueton VC, Tierney J, Stenning S, Harding S, Meredith S, Nazareth I, Rait G. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;12:MR000032. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000032.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000032.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  29. Minneci PC, Mahida JB, Lodwick DL, Sulkowski JP, Nacion KM, Cooper JN, et al. Effectiveness of patient choice in nonoperative vs surgical management of pediatric uncomplicated acute appendicitis. JAMA Surg 2016;151:408–15. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2015.4534 doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2015.4534. [DOI] [PubMed]
  30. Hartwich J, Luks FI, Watson-Smith D, Kurkchubasche AG, Muratore CS, Wills HE, Tracy TF. Nonoperative treatment of acute appendicitis in children: a feasibility study. J Pediatr Surg 2016;51:111–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2015.10.024 doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2015.10.024. [DOI] [PubMed]
  31. Tiboni S, Bhangu A, Hall NJ, Paediatric Surgery Trainees Research Network and the National Surgical Research Collaborative. Outcome of appendicectomy in children performed in paediatric surgery units compared with general surgery units. Br J Surg 2014;101:707–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9455 doi: 10.1002/bjs.9455. [DOI] [PubMed]
  32. Chapman SJ, Shelton B, Mahmood H, Fitzgerald JE, Harrison EM, Bhangu A. Discontinuation and non-publication of surgical randomised controlled trials: observational study. BMJ 2014;349:g6870. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g6870 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g6870. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  33. Sully BG, Julious SA, Nicholl J. A reinvestigation of recruitment to randomised, controlled, multicenter trials: a review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials 2013;14:166. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-14-166 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  34. Cook JA. The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials. Trials 2009;10:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-10-9 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-10-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  35. Rosenthal R, Kasenda B, Dell-Kuster S, von Elm E, You J, Blümle A, et al. Completion and publication rates of randomized controlled trials in surgery: an empirical study. Ann Surg 2015;262:68–73. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000810 doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000810. [DOI] [PubMed]
  36. Hall NJ, Eaton S, Abbo O, Arnaud AP, Beaudin M, Brindle M, et al. Appendectomy versus non-operative treatment for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children: study protocol for a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. BMJ Paediatr Open 2017;1:e000028. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2017-000028 doi: 10.1136/bmjpo-2017-000028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  37. Caldwell PHY, Murphy SB, Butow PN, Craig JC. Clinical trials in children. Lancet 2004;364:803–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16942-0 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16942-0. [DOI] [PubMed]
  38. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Children and Clinical Research: Ethical Issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics; 2015.
  39. Rowlands C, Rooshenas L, Fairhurst K, Rees J, Gamble C, Blazeby JM. Detailed systematic analysis of recruitment strategies in randomised controlled trials in patients with an unscheduled admission to hospital. BMJ Open 2018;8:e018581. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018581 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018581. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  40. Fletcher B, Gheorghe A, Moore D, Wilson S, Damery S. Improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2012;2:e000496. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000496 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  41. Blazeby JM. Recruiting patients into randomized clinical trials in surgery. Br J Surg 2012;99:307–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.7818 doi: 10.1002/bjs.7818. [DOI] [PubMed]
  42. Donovan J, Mills N, Smith M, Brindle L, Jacoby A, Peters T, et al. Quality improvement report: improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult. BMJ 2002;325:766–70. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7367.766 doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7367.766. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  43. Mills N, Blazeby JM, Hamdy FC, Neal DE, Campbell B, Wilson C, et al. Training recruiters to randomized trials to facilitate recruitment and informed consent by exploring patients’ treatment preferences. Trials 2014;15:323. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-323 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  44. Mills N, Donovan JL, Wade J, Hamdy FC, Neal DE, Lane JA. Exploring treatment preferences facilitated recruitment to randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1127–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.12.017 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.12.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  45. Wade J, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Neal DE, Hamdy FC. It’s not just what you say, it’s also how you say it: opening the ‘black box’ of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials. Soc Sci Med 2009;68:2018–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.02.023 doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.02.023. [DOI] [PubMed]
  46. Donovan JL, Paramasivan S, de Salis I, Toerien M. Clear obstacles and hidden challenges: understanding recruiter perspectives in six pragmatic randomised controlled trials. Trials 2014;15:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-5 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  47. Salmon P, Mendick N, Young B. Integrative qualitative communication analysis of consultation and patient and practitioner perspectives: towards a theory of authentic caring in clinical relationships. Patient Educ Couns 2011;82:448–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.10.017 doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.10.017. [DOI] [PubMed]
  48. Fusch PI, Ness LR. Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. Qualitative Report 2015;20:1408–16.
  49. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005;15:1277–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687. [DOI] [PubMed]
  50. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. [DOI]
  51. Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000;320:50–2. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50 doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  52. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. English Indices of Deprivation 2015. London: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; 2015. URL: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2015 (accessed 16 August 2018).
  53. Donovan JL, Rooshenas L, Jepson M, Elliott D, Wade J, Avery K, et al. Optimising recruitment and informed consent in randomised controlled trials: the development and implementation of the Quintet Recruitment Intervention (QRI). Trials 2016;17:283. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1391-4 doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1391-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  54. Elliott D, Husbands S, Hamdy FC, Holmberg L, Donovan JL. Understanding and improving recruitment to randomised controlled trials: qualitative research approaches. Eur Urol 2017;72:789–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.036 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.036. [DOI] [PubMed]
  55. Rooshenas L, Bluebelle Study Group. Bluebelle study (phase A): a mixed-methods feasibility study to inform an RCT of surgical wound dressing strategies. BMJ Open 2016;6:e012635. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012635 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012635. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  56. Crawley E, Mills N, Beasant L, Johnson D, Collin SM, Deans Z, et al. The feasibility and acceptability of conducting a trial of specialist medical care and the Lightning Process in children with chronic fatigue syndrome: feasibility randomized controlled trial (SMILE study). Trials 2013;14:415. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-14-415 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-415. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  57. Stein RC, Dunn JA, Bartlett JM, Campbell AF, Marshall A, Hall P, et al. OPTIMA prelim: a randomised feasibility study of personalised care in the treatment of women with early breast cancer. Health Technol Assess 2016;20(10). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta20100 doi: 10.3310/hta20100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  58. Blackshaw H, Carding P, Jepson M, Mat Baki M, Ambler G, Schilder A, et al. Does iaryngeal reinnervation or type I thyroplasty give better voice results for patients with unilateral vocal fold paralysis (VOCALIST): study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016871. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016871 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016871. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  59. Sherratt FC, Roper L, Stones SR, McErlane F, Peak M, Beresford MW, et al. Protective parents and permissive children: what qualitative interviews with parents and children can tell us about the feasibility juvenile idiopathic arthritis trials. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J 2018;16:76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12969-018-0293-2 doi: 10.1186/s12969-018-0293-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  60. Donovan JL, de Salis I, Toerien M, Paramasivan S, Hamdy FC, Blazeby JM. The intellectual challenges and emotional consequences of equipoise contributed to the fragility of recruitment in six randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:912–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.010 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  61. Shilling V, Williamson PR, Hickey H, Sowden E, Smyth RL, Young B. Processes in recruitment to randomised controlled trials of medicines for children (RECRUIT): a qualitative study. Health Technol Assess 2011;15(15). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta15150 doi: 10.3310/hta15150. [DOI] [PubMed]
  62. Jensen JD, King AJ, Carcioppolo N, Davis L. Why are tailored messages more effective? A multiple mediation analysis of a breast cancer screening intervention. J Commun 2012;62:851–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01668.x doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01668.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  63. Sinha IP, Altman DG, Beresford MW, Boers M, Clarke M, Craig J, et al. Standard 5: selection, measurement, and reporting of outcomes in clinical trials in children. Pediatrics 2012;129(Suppl. 3):146–52. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-0055H doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-0055H. [DOI] [PubMed]
  64. Williamson P, Altman D, Blazeby J, Clarke M, Gargon E. Driving up the quality and relevance of research through the use of agreed core outcomes. J Health Serv Res Policy 2012;17:1–2. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2011.011131 doi: 10.1258/jhsrp.2011.011131. [DOI] [PubMed]
  65. Gargon E, Gurung B, Medley N, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Williamson PR. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review. PLOS ONE 2014;9:e99111. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099111 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  66. Hall NJ, Kapadia MZ, Eaton S, Chan WW, Nickel C, Pierro A, Offringa M. Outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses of appendicitis treatments in children: a systematic review. Trials 2015;16:275. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0783-1 doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0783-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  67. Sherratt FC, Eaton S, Walker E, Beasant L, Blazeby JM, Young B, et al. Development of a core outcome set to determine the overall treatment success of acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children: a study protocol. BMJ Paediatr Open 2017;1:e000151. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2017-000151 doi: 10.1136/bmjpo-2017-000151. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  68. COMET Initiative. A Core Outcome Set for Use in Determining the Overall Success of Acute Uncomplicated Appendicitis Treatment in Children. URL: www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/987 (accessed 25 February 2020).
  69. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, Gargon E, Tugwell P. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials 2012;13:132. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-132 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  70. Sinha IP, Smyth RL, Williamson PR. Using the Delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies. PLOS Med 2011;8:e1000393. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000393 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000393. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  71. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Atkins D, Brozek J, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:395–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.012 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  72. Allin BSR, Hall NJ, Ross AR, Marven SS, Kurinczuk JJ, Knight M. Development of a gastroschisis core outcome set. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2019;104:F76–82. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2017-314560 doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2017-314560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  73. Allin BSR, Bradnock T, Kenny S, Kurinczuk JJ, Walker G, Knight M, NETS1HD Collaboration. NETS1HD study: development of a Hirschsprung’s disease core outcome set. Arch Dis Child 2017;102:1143–51. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2017-312901 doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2017-312901. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  74. Young B, Bagley H. Including patients in core outcome set development: issues to consider based on three workshops with around 100 international delegates. Res Involv Engagem 2016;2:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-016-0039-6 doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0039-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  75. Delbecq AL, Van de Ven AH, Gustafson DH. Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company; 1975.
  76. Broderick TL, Cifuentes J, Green D, Paulson DJ. Short-term carnitine deficiency does not alter aerobic rat heart function but depresses reperfusion recovery after ischemia. Can J Physiol Pharm 2001;79:892–7. https://doi.org/10.1139/y01-051 doi: 10.1139/y01-051. [DOI] [PubMed]
  77. Coulman KD, Hopkins J, Brookes ST, Chalmers K, Main B, Owen-Smith A, et al. A core outcome set for the benefits and adverse events of bariatric and metabolic surgery: the BARIACT project. PLOS Med 2016;13:e1002187. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002187 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  78. McNair AG, Whistance RN, Forsythe RO, Macefield R, Rees J, Pullyblank AM, et al. Core outcomes for colorectal cancer surgery: a consensus study. PLOS Med 2016;13:e1002071. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002071 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002071. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  79. Potter S, Holcombe C, Ward JA, Blazeby JM, BRAVO Steering Group. Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery. Br J Surg 2015;102:1360–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9883 doi: 10.1002/bjs.9883. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  80. INVOLVE. What is Public Involvement in Research? 2017. URL: www.invo.org.uk/find-out-more/what-is-public-involvement-in-research-2/ (accessed 21 November 2017).
  81. Boers M, Kirwan JR, Wells G, Beaton D, Gossec L, d’Agostino MA, et al. Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:745–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.013 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.013. [DOI] [PubMed]
  82. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, Barnes KL, Blazeby JM, Brookes ST, et al. The COMET Handbook: version 1.0. Trials 2017;18:280. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1978-4 doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-1978-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  83. Prinsen CA, Vohra S, Rose MR, Boers M, Tugwell P, Clarke M, et al. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a ‘Core Outcome Set’ – a practical guideline. Trials 2016;17:449. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1555-2 doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1555-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  84. COSMIN Initiative. COSMIN Helps you Select the Most Suitable Outcome Measurement Instruments. URL: www.cosmin.nl/ (accessed 27 February 2020).
  85. COMET Initiative. Protocol for the Development of a Global Core Outcome Set for Treatment of Uncomplicated Appendicitis in Children. URL: www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1119 (accessed 27 February 2020).
  86. Morris C, Janssens A, Shilling V, Allard A, Fellowes A, Tomlinson R, et al. Meaningful health outcomes for paediatric neurodisability: stakeholder prioritisation and appropriateness of patient reported outcome measures. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2015;13:87. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0284-7 doi: 10.1186/s12955-015-0284-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  87. Sinha IP, Gallagher R, Williamson PR, Smyth RL. Development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in childhood asthma: a survey of clinicians, parents, and young people. Trials 2012;13:103. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-103 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  88. Fair C, Cuttance J, Sharma N, Maslow G, Wiener L, Betz C, et al. International and interdisciplinary identification of health care transition outcomes. JAMA Pediatr 2016;170:205–11. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.3168 doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.3168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  89. Sherratt FC, Allin BSR, Kirkham JJ, Walker E, Young B, Wood W, et al. Core outcome set for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children and young people. Br J Surg 2020;107:1013–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11508 doi: 10.1002/bjs.11508. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  90. Kirkham JJ, Davis K, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Tunis S, et al. Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development: The COS-STAD recommendations. PLOS Medicine 2017;14:e1002447. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002447 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002447. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  91. Loudon K, Treweek S, Sullivan F, Donnan P, Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M. The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose. BMJ 2015;350:h2147. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2147 doi: 10.1136/bmj.h2147. [DOI] [PubMed]
  92. Cook JA, Julious SA, Sones W, Hampson LV, Hewitt C, Berlin JA, et al. DELTA2 guidance on choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial. Br Med J 2018;363:k3750. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3750 doi: 10.1136/bmj.k3750. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  93. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, Efficacy Working Party, Committee for Release for Consultation. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) guideline on the choice of the non-inferiority margin. Statist Med 2006;25:1628–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2584 doi: 10.1002/sim.2584. [DOI] [PubMed]
  94. NHS Improvement. Archived Reference Costs. URL: https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/reference-costs/ (accessed 30 January 2019).
  95. Chorozoglou M, Reading I, Eaton S, Hutchings N, Hall NJ. Health economics and quality of life in a feasibility RCT of paediatric acute appendicitis: a protocol study. BMJ Paediatr Open 2018;2:e000347. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2018-000347 doi: 10.1136/bmjpo-2018-000347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  96. Drummond M, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Stoddart G, Torrance G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
  97. Drummond M, McGuire A. Economic Evaluation in Health Care: Merging Theory with Practice. 2nd edn. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2004.
  98. Riewpaiboon A, Malaroje S, Kongsawatt S. Effect of costing methods on unit cost of hospital medical services. Trop Med Int Health 2007;12:554–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2007.01815.x doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2007.01815.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  99. Beecham J, Knapp M. Costing Psychiatric Interventions. In Thornicroft G, Brewin C, Wing J, editors. Measuring Mental Health Needs. 2nd edn. London: Gaskell/Royal College of Psychiatrists; 2001. pp. 200–24.
  100. Smith MW, Barnett PG. Direct measurement of health care costs. Med Care Res Rev 2003;60(Suppl. 3):74–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558703257001 doi: 10.1177/1077558703257001. [DOI] [PubMed]
  101. Byford S, McDaid D, Sefton T. Because It’s Worth It: A Practical Guide to Conducting Economic Evaluations in the Social Welfare Field. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation; 2003.
  102. Byford S, Leese M, Knapp M, Seivewright H, Cameron S, Jones V, et al. Comparison of alternative methods of collection of service use data for the economic evaluation of health care interventions. Health Econ 2007;16:531–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1175 doi: 10.1002/hec.1175. [DOI] [PubMed]
  103. Knapp M, Beecham J. Reduced list costings: examination of an informed short cut in mental health research. Health Econ 1993;2:313–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4730020404 doi: 10.1002/hec.4730020404. [DOI] [PubMed]
  104. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2017. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2017.
  105. Petrou S. Methodological issues raised by preference-based approaches to measuring the health status of children. Health Econ 2003;12:697–702. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.775 doi: 10.1002/hec.775. [DOI] [PubMed]
  106. White H, Sabarwal S. Developing and Selecting Measures of Child Well-Being: Methodological Briefs – Impact Evaluation No. 11. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research; 2014.
  107. Khadka J, Kwon J, Petrou S, Lancsar E, Ratcliffe J. Mind the (inter-rater) gap. An investigation of self-reported versus proxy-reported assessments in the derivation of childhood utility values for economic evaluation: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med 2019;240:112543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112543 doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112543. [DOI] [PubMed]
  108. Petrou S, Gray R. Methodological challenges posed by economic evaluations of early childhood intervention programmes. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2005;4:175–81. https://doi.org/10.2165/00148365-200504030-00006 doi: 10.2165/00148365-200504030-00006. [DOI] [PubMed]
  109. Ungar WJ. Challenges in health state valuation in paediatric economic evaluation: are QALYs contraindicated? PharmacoEconomics 2011;29:641–52. https://doi.org/10.2165/11591570-000000000-00000 doi: 10.2165/11591570-000000000-00000. [DOI] [PubMed]
  110. Dolan P. EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9 doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  111. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. A Social Tariff for EuroQol: Results from a UK General Population Study. Centre for Health Economics Working Papers. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 1995.
  112. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. London: NICE; 2013. [PubMed]
  113. Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G, Burström K, Cavrini G, Devlin N, et al. Development of the EQ-5D-Y: a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res 2010;19:875–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9648-y doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9648-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  114. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011;20:1727–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  115. Stevens K. Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure of health-related quality of life for children. Qual Life Res 2009;18:1105–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9524-9 doi: 10.1007/s11136-009-9524-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  116. Stevens KJ. Working with children to develop dimensions for a preference-based, generic, pediatric, health-related quality-of-life measure. Qual Health Res 2010;20:340–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732309358328 doi: 10.1177/1049732309358328. [DOI] [PubMed]
  117. Stevens K. Assessing the performance of a new generic measure of health-related quality of life for children and refining it for use in health state valuation. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2011;9:157–69. https://doi.org/10.2165/11587350-000000000-00000 doi: 10.2165/11587350-000000000-00000. [DOI] [PubMed]
  118. Stevens KJ, Freeman JV. An assessment of the psychometric performance of the Health Utilities Index 2 and 3 in children following discharge from a U.K. pediatric intensive care unit. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2012;13:387–92. https://doi.org/10.1097/PCC.0b013e318238969a doi: 10.1097/PCC.0b013e318238969a. [DOI] [PubMed]
  119. Stevens K, Ratcliffe J. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation in adolescence: an assessment of the practicality and validity of the child health utility 9D in the Australian adolescent population. Value Health 2012;15:1092–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.07.011 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.07.011. [DOI] [PubMed]
  120. Stevens K. Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index. PharmacoEconomics 2012;30:729–47. https://doi.org/10.2165/11599120-000000000-00000 doi: 10.2165/11599120-000000000-00000. [DOI] [PubMed]
  121. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009;42:377–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  122. NHS Digital. NHS Workforce Statistics, December 2017. 2018. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/nhs-workforce-statistics/nhs-workforce-statistics-december-2017 (accessed July 2020).
  123. INVOLVE. Public Involvement in Research: Values and Principles Framework. Southampton: INVOLVE; 2015.
  124. Mental Health Research Network, INVOLVE. Budgeting for Involvement: Practical Advice on Budgeting for Actively Involving the Public in Research Studies. London and Southampton: Mental Health Research Network and INVOLVE; 2013.
  125. Mathie E, Wythe H, Munday D, Millac P, Rhodes G, Roberts N, et al. Reciprocal relationships and the importance of feedback in patient and public involvement: a mixed methods study. Health Expect 2018;21:899–908. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12684 doi: 10.1111/hex.12684. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  126. Johannesen J. Exploring the Purpose and Meaning of Patient Engagement in Pediatric Neurodisability Research. 2017. URL: https://johannesen.ca/2017/11/exploring-purpose-meaning-patient-engagement-pediatric-neurodisability-research (accessed 30 January 2019).
  127. National Institute for Health Research. Patient and Public Involvement in Health and Social Care Research. London: NIHR Research Design Service; 2018.
  128. Loukogeorgakis SP, Major C, Jones CE, Corbett HJ, Folaranmi SE, Stanton MP, et al. Derivation and validation of a novel clinical decision aid to distinguish between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis in children. Gastrointestinal surgery 2020 (submitted). https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-23218/v1 doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-23218/v1. [DOI]
  129. Knaapen M, van der Lee JH, Heij HA, van Heurn ELW, Bakx R, Gorter RR. Clinical recovery in children with uncomplicated appendicitis undergoing non-operative treatment: secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study. Eur J Pediatr 2019;178:235–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-018-3277-9 doi: 10.1007/s00431-018-3277-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  130. Miyano G, Ochi T, Seo S, Nakamura H, Okawada M, Doi T, et al. Factors affecting non-operative management of uncomplicated appendicitis in children: should laparoscopic appendectomy be immediate, interval, or emergency? Asian J Endosc Surg 2019;12:434–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/ases.12677 doi: 10.1111/ases.12677. [DOI] [PubMed]
  131. Bachur RG, Lipsett SC, Monuteaux MC. Outcomes of nonoperative management of uncomplicated appendicitis. Pediatrics 2017;140:e20170048. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-0048 doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-0048. [DOI] [PubMed]
  132. Lee SL, Spence L, Mock K, Wu JX, Yan H, DeUgarte DA. Expanding the inclusion criteria for nonoperative management of uncomplicated appendicitis: outcomes and cost [published online ahead of print October 9 2017]. J Pediatr Surg 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2017.10.014. [DOI] [PubMed]
  133. Talan DA, Saltzman DJ, Mower WR, Krishnadasan A, Jude CM, Amii R, et al. Antibiotics-first versus surgery for appendicitis: a US pilot randomized controlled trial allowing outpatient antibiotic management. Ann Emerg Med 2017;70:1–11.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.08.446. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  134. Abbo O, Trabanino C, Pinnagoda K, Ait Kaci A, Carfagna L, Mouttalib S, et al. Non-operative management for uncomplicated appendicitis: an option to consider. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2018;28:18–21. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1607292 doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1607292. [DOI] [PubMed]
  135. Caruso AM, Pane A, Garau R, Atzori P, Podda M, Casuccio A, Mascia L. Acute appendicitis in children: not only surgical treatment. J Pediatr Surg 2017;52:444–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2016.08.007 doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2016.08.007. [DOI] [PubMed]
  136. Xu J, Liu YC, Adams S, Karpelowsky J. Acute uncomplicated appendicitis study: rationale and protocol for a multicentre, prospective randomised controlled non-inferiority study to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of non-operative management in children with acute uncomplicated appendicitis. BMJ Open 2016;6:e013299. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013299 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  137. ClinicalTrials.gov. Appendectomy Versus Non-Operative Treatment For Acute Non-Perforated Appendicitis in Children (APPY). URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ NCT02687464 (accessed 2 March 2020).
  138. ClinicalTrials.gov. Non-operative Management for Appendicitis in Children (APRES). URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ NCT02795793 (accessed 2 March 2020).
  139. ClinicalTrials.gov. Initial Non-operative Treatment Strategy Versus Appendectomy Treatment Strategy for Simple Appendicitis in Children (APAC). URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ NCT02848820 (accessed 2 March 2020).
  140. Knaapen M, van der Lee JH, Bakx R, The SL, van Heurn EWE, Heij HA, Gorter RR, APAC collaborative study group. Initial non-operative management of uncomplicated appendicitis in children: a protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (APAC trial). BMJ Open 2017;7:e018145. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018145 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  141. ClinicalTrials.gov. Comparison of Medical and Surgical Treatment of Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis in Children. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ NCT02991937 (accessed 2 March 2020).
  142. Narsule CK, Kahle EJ, Kim DS, Anderson AC, Luks FI. Effect of delay in presentation on rate of perforation in children with appendicitis. Am J Emerg Med 2011;29:890–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2010.04.005 doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2010.04.005. [DOI] [PubMed]
  143. Serres SK, Cameron DB, Glass CC, Graham DA, Zurakowski D, Karki M, et al. Time to appendectomy and risk of complicated appendicitis and adverse outcomes in children. JAMA Pediatr 2017;171:740–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.0885 doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.0885. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  144. Byrne A, Morton J, Salmon P. Defending against patients’ pain: a qualitative analysis of nurses’ responses to children’s postoperative pain. J Psychosom Res 2001;50:69–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(00)00207-5 doi: 10.1016/S0022-3999(00)00207-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  145. Karlson CW, Rapoff MA. Attrition in randomized controlled trials for pediatric chronic conditions. J Pediatr Psychol 2009;34:782–93. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsn122 doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsn122. [DOI] [PubMed]
  146. European Parliament, Council of the European Union. Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the Approximation of the Laws, Regulations and Administrative Provisions of the Member States Relating to the Implementation of Good Clinical Practice in the Conduct of Clinical Trials on Medicinal Products for Human Use. 2001. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32001L0020 (accessed 25 February 2020). [PubMed]
  147. Coats TJ, Shakur H. Consent in emergency research: new regulations. Emerg Med J 2005;22:683–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/emj.2005.024588 doi: 10.1136/emj.2005.024588. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  148. Briel M, Olu KK, von Elm E, Kasenda B, Alturki R, Agarwal A, et al. A systematic review of discontinued trials suggested that most reasons for recruitment failure were preventable. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;80:8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.07.016 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.07.016. [DOI] [PubMed]
  149. World Medical Association (WMA). WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Ferney-Voltaire: WMA; 2013. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053. [DOI] [PubMed]
  150. Griffin D, Wall P, Realpe A, Adams A, Parsons N, Hobson R, et al. UK FASHIoN: feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for hip impingement compared with best conservative care. Health Technol Assess 2016;20(32). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta20320 doi: 10.3310/hta20320. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  151. Callahan MJ, Rodriguez DP, Taylor GA. CT of appendicitis in children. Radiology 2002;224:325–32. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2242010998 doi: 10.1148/radiol.2242010998. [DOI] [PubMed]
  152. Rothrock SG, Pagane J. Acute appendicitis in children: emergency department diagnosis and management. Ann Emerg Med 2000;36:39–51. https://doi.org/10.1067/mem.2000.105658 doi: 10.1067/mem.2000.105658. [DOI] [PubMed]
  153. Chen CL, Chao HC, Kong MS, Chen SY. Risk factors for prolonged hospitalization in pediatric appendicitis patients with medical treatment. Pediatr Neonatol 2017;58:223–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedneo.2016.02.011 doi: 10.1016/j.pedneo.2016.02.011. [DOI] [PubMed]
  154. Jimbo K, Takeda M, Miyata E, Murakami H, Kyodo R, Orikasa H, et al. Is a pediatrician performed gray scale ultrasonography with power Doppler study safe and effective for triaging acute non-perforated appendicitis for conservative management? J Pediatr Surg 2016;51:1952–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2016.09.018 doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2016.09.018. [DOI] [PubMed]
  155. Kaneko K, Tsuda M. Ultrasound-based decision making in the treatment of acute appendicitis in children. J Pediatr Surg 2004;39:1316–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2004.05.011 doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2004.05.011. [DOI] [PubMed]
  156. Koike Y, Uchida K, Matsushita K, Otake K, Nakazawa M, Inoue M, et al. Intraluminal appendiceal fluid is a predictive factor for recurrent appendicitis after initial successful non-operative management of uncomplicated appendicitis in pediatric patients. J Pediatr Surg 2014;49:1116–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2014.01.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2014.01.003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  157. Mahida JB, Lodwick DL, Nacion KM, Sulkowski JP, Leonhart KL, Cooper JN, et al. High failure rate of nonoperative management of acute appendicitis with an appendicolith in children. J Pediatr Surg 2016;51:908–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2016.02.056 doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2016.02.056. [DOI] [PubMed]
  158. Mudri M, Coriolano K, Bütter A. Cost analysis of nonoperative management of acute appendicitis in children. J Pediatr Surg 2017;52:791–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2017.01.050 doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2017.01.050. [DOI] [PubMed]
  159. Steiner Z, Buklan G, Stackievicz R, Gutermacher M, Litmanovitz I, Golani G, Arnon S. Conservative treatment in uncomplicated acute appendicitis: reassessment of practice safety. Eur J Pediatr 2017;176:521–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-017-2867-2 doi: 10.1007/s00431-017-2867-2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  160. Tanaka Y, Uchida H, Kawashima H, Fujiogi M, Takazawa S, Deie K, Amano H. Long-term outcomes of operative versus nonoperative treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis. J Pediatr Surg 2015;50:1893–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2015.07.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2015.07.008. [DOI] [PubMed]

RESOURCES