A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of published randomized clinical trials comparing early versus interval appendectomy for children with perforated appendicitis

[1]  L. Stewart,et al.  Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD Statement. , 2015, JAMA.

[2]  J. Sterne,et al.  The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  J. Eubanks,et al.  Early vs interval appendectomy for children with perforated appendicitis. , 2011, Archives of surgery.

[4]  S. S. St. Peter,et al.  The current state of evidence-based pediatric surgery. , 2010, Journal of pediatric surgery.

[5]  Ellen Frank,et al.  Moderators of treatment outcomes: clinical, research, and policy importance. , 2006, JAMA.

[6]  Sara T Brookes,et al.  Subgroup analyses in randomized trials: risks of subgroup-specific analyses; power and sample size for the interaction test. , 2004, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[7]  Marion Sills,et al.  Appendicitis 2000: variability in practice, outcomes, and resource utilization at thirty pediatric hospitals. , 2003, Journal of pediatric surgery.

[8]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  J. Matthews,et al.  Statistics Notes: Interaction 1: heterogeneity of effects , 1996, BMJ.

[10]  M. Parmar,et al.  Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: is there a difference? , 1993, The Lancet.

[11]  S. S. St. Peter,et al.  Initial laparoscopic appendectomy versus initial nonoperative management and interval appendectomy for perforated appendicitis with abscess: a prospective, randomized trial. , 2010, Journal of pediatric surgery.