Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24988435›Full record

ArticleRadiology2014

Imaging for appendicitis: should radiation-induced cancer risks affect modality selection?

Sorapop Kiatpongsan, Lesley Meng, Jonathan D Eisenberg, Maurice Herring, Laura L Avery, Chung Yin Kong, Pari V Pandharipande

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Rapid MRI Abdomen for Assessment of Clinically Suspected Acute Appendicitis in the General Adult Population: a Systematic Review.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Sorapop KiatpongsanFrom the Massachusetts General Hospital Institute for Technology Assessment, 101 Merrimac St, 10th Floor, Boston, MA 02114 (S.K., L.M., J.D.E., M.H., C.Y.K., P.V.P.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand (S.K.); Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (L.L.A., C.Y.K., P.V.P.); and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (C.Y.K., P.V.P.).
Lesley Meng
Jonathan D Eisenberg
Maurice Herring
Laura L Avery
Chung Yin Kong
Pari V Pandharipande
Center for Assessment · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USChulalongkorn University · THHarvard University · US

Funding

Cost-Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Ablation for Small, Incidental Renal TumorsK07CA133097 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI PANDHARIPANDE, PARI VIJAY · 2009 to 2013
$891k
Applications of Multi-Criteria Optimization (AMCO) to Cancer Simulation ModelingK25CA133141 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI KONG, CHUNG YIN · 2009 to 2013
$844k
NCI NIH HHS K07 CA133097NCI NIH HHS K07CA133097NCI NIH HHS K25 CA133141NCI NIH HHS K25CA133141
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare life expectancy (LE) losses attributable to three imaging strategies for appendicitis in adults-computed tomography (CT), ultrasonography (US) followed by CT for negative or indeterminate US results, and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-by using a decision-analytic model. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this model, for each imaging strategy, LE losses for 20-, 40-, and 65-year-old men and women were computed as a function of five key variables: baseline cohort LE, test performance, surgical mortality, risk of death from delayed diagnosis (missed appendicitis), and LE loss attributable to radiation-induced cancer death. Appendicitis prevalence, test performance, mortality rates from surgery and missed appendicitis, and radiation doses from CT were elicited from the published literature and institutional data. LE loss attributable to radiation exposure was projected by using a separate organ-specific model that accounted for anatomic coverage during a typical abdominopelvic CT examination. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate effects of model input variability on results.

resultsOutcomes across imaging strategies differed minimally-for example, for 20-year-old men, corresponding LE losses were 5.8 days (MR imaging), 6.8 days (combined US and CT), and 8.2 days (CT). This order was sensitive to differences in test performance but was insensitive to variation in radiation-induced cancer deaths. For example, in the same cohort, MR imaging sensitivity had to be 91% at minimum (if specificity were 100%), and MR imaging specificity had to be 62% at minimum (if sensitivity were 100%) to incur the least LE loss. Conversely, LE loss attributable to radiation exposure would need to decrease by 74-fold for combined US and CT, instead of MR imaging, to incur the least LE loss.

conclusionThe specific imaging strategy used to diagnose appendicitis minimally affects outcomes. Paradigm shifts to MR imaging owing to concerns over radiation should be considered only if MR imaging test performance is very high.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDiagnostic ImagingAppendicitisFemaleHumansLife ExpectancyMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasms, Radiation-InducedPrevalenceRiskSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID24988435
PMCPMC4209005
OpenAlexW2119499087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.