ArticleBulletin of emergency and trauma2015
The Diagnostic Value of Surface Markers in Acute Appendicitis; A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.
Article in Bulletin of emergency and trauma, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- RIPASA and air scoring systems are superior to alvarado scoring in acute appendicitis: Diagnostic accuracy study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2020Article
- The accuracy of white blood cell count in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis using age-sex-adjusted receiver operating characteristic approach.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the diagnostic value of blood cells surface markers in patients with acute appendicitis.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, 71 patients who underwent appendectomy following a diagnosis of appendicitis were recruited during a one-year period. The patients were divided into two groups: patients with histopathologically confirmed acute appendicitis and subjects with normal appendix. Blood cell surface markers of all patients were measured. Univariate and multivariate analytical methods were applied to identify the most useful markers. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were also used to find the best cut-off point, sensitivity, and specificity.
resultsOverall we included 71 patients with mean age of 22.6±10.7 years. Of the 71 cases, 45 (63.4%) had acute appendicitis while 26 (36.6%) were normal. There was no significant difference between two study groups regarding the age (p=0.151) and sex (p=0.142). The initial WBC count was significantly higher in those with acute appendicitis (p=0.033). Maximum and minimum area under the ROC curve in univariate analysis was reported for CD3/RA (0.71) and CD38 (0.533), respectively. Multivariate regression models revealed the percentage of accurate diagnoses based on the combination of γ/δ TCR, CD3/RO, and CD3/RA markers to be 74.65%. Maximum area under the ROC curve (0.79) was also obtained for the same combination.
conclusionthe best blood cell surface markers in the prediction of acute appendicitis were HLA-DR+CD19, a/β TCR, and CD3/RA. The simultaneous use of γ/δ TCR, CD3/RA, and CD3/RO showed the highest diagnostic value in acute appendicitis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27162905PMC4771269W1535201514What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.