Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

Background Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis. Methods A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16–45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis). Results Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two‐thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut‐off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut‐off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent). Conclusion Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision‐making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified

The recognizable European. Sebald’s and Tišma’s human geographies of stitches and scars

This article describes how two novels with a strong European presence from the 1990s onward, Aleksandar Tišma’s The Book of Blam and W. G. Sebald’s Austerlitz, offer an understanding of the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s through the prism of the Holocaust. First, a reading of Austerlitz reveals an intriguing lacuna in Sebald’s melancholic map of Europe. I read this lacuna, using Judith Butler’s notion of ‘the recognizable human’, as Sebald’s predominantly Western-European perspective. I then place this next to Aleksandar Tišma’s conception of Srednja Evropa. This European middle space offers more suggestive and ambivalent East-West imagery for post-1989 Europe, and also, as I contend, a more complex framing of the Yugoslav wars with reference to the Holocaust. The essay will then try to assess literary fiction’s renewed claim on the real, particularly with respect to the distribution of ‘the recognizable human’ within the various zones of Europe

Systematic review to inform prevention and management of chronic disease for Indigenous Australians: overview and priorities

Objective: To describe the main characteristics of systematic reviews addressing questions of chronic disease and related risk factors for Indigenous Australians. Methods: We searched databases for systematic reviews meeting inclusion criteria. Two reviewers assessed quality and extracted characteristics using pre-defined tools. Results: We identified 14 systematic reviews. Seven synthesised evidence about health intervention effectiveness; four addressed chronic disease or risk factor prevalence; and six conducted critical appraisal as per current best practice. Only three reported steps to align the review with standards for ethical research with Indigenous Australians and/or capture Indigenous-specific knowledge. Most called for more high-quality research. Conclusion: Systematic review is an under-utilised method for gathering evidence to inform chronic disease prevention and management for Indigenous Australians. Relevance of future systematic reviews could be improved by: 1) aligning questions with community priorities as well as decision maker needs; 2) involvement of, and leadership by, Indigenous researchers with relevant cultural and contextual knowledge; iii) use of critical appraisal tools that include traditional risk of bias assessment criteria and criteria that reflect Indigenous standards of appropriate research. Implications: Systematic review method guidance, tools and reporting standards are required to ensure alignment with ethical obligations and promote rigor and relevance.Judith Streak Gomersall, Karla Canuto, Edoardo Aromataris, Annette Braunack-Mayer and Alex Brow