Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27743632›Full record

ArticleCurrent problems in diagnostic radiology

The Reliability of a Standardized Reporting System for the Diagnosis of Appendicitis.

Vlad V Simianu, Anna Shamitoff, Daniel S Hippe, Benjamin D Godwin, Jabi E Shriki, Frederick T Drake, Ryan B O'Malley, Suresh Maximin, Sarah Bastawrous, Mariam Moshiri and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current problems in diagnostic radiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Are renal stone protocol computed tomography reports giving us enough information?Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vlad V SimianuDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Anna ShamitoffDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Daniel S HippeDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle WA.
Benjamin D GodwinDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle WA.
Jabi E ShrikiDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle WA.
Frederick T DrakeDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Ryan B O'MalleyDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle WA.
Suresh MaximinDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle WA.
Sarah BastawrousDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle WA.
Mariam MoshiriDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle WA.
Jean H LeeDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle WA.
Carlos CuevasDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle WA.
Manjiri DigheDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle WA.
David FlumDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Puneet BhargavaDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle WA. Electronic address: bhargp@uw.edu.
University of Washington · US

Funding

Renewal: Gastrointestinal Surgery Outcomes Research FellowshipT32DK070555 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI FLUM, DAVID R · 2010 to 2024
$3.6M
NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK070555
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeComputed tomography (CT) is a fast and ubiquitous tool to evaluate intra-abdominal organs and diagnose appendicitis. However, traditional CT reporting does not necessarily capture the degree of uncertainty and indeterminate findings are still common. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reproducibility of a standardized CT reporting system for appendicitis across a large population and the system's impact on radiologists' certainty in diagnosing appendicitis.

methodsUsing a previously described standardized reporting system, eight radiologists retrospectively evaluated CT scans, blinded to all clinical information, in a stratified random sample of 237 patients from a larger cohort of patients imaged for possible appendicitis (2010-2014). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) were used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of readers for identifying appendicitis. Two-thirds of these scans were randomly selected to be independently read by a second reader, using the original CT reports to balance the number of positive, negative and indeterminate exams across all readers. Inter-reader agreement was evaluated.

resultsThere were 113 patients with appendicitis (mean age 38, 67% male). Using the standardized report, radiologists were highly accurate at identifying appendicitis (AUC=0.968, 95%CI confidence interval: 0.95, 0.99. Inter-reader agreement was >80% for most objective findings, and certainty in diagnosing appendicitis was high and reproducible (AUC=0.955 and AUC=0.936 for the first and second readers, respectively).

conclusionsUsing a standardized reporting system resulted in high reproducibility of objective CT findings for appendicitis and achieved high diagnostic accuracy in an at-risk population. Predictive tools based on this reporting system may further improve communication about certainty in diagnosis and guide patient management, especially when CT findings are indeterminate.

Indexed as

Tomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultAppendicitisClinical CompetenceDocumentationFemaleHumansMaleObserver VariationRadiology Information SystemsReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID27743632
PMCPMC5821469
OpenAlexW2506280016

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.