ArticleAnnals of coloproctology2017
Which One is Better? Comparison of the Acute Inflammatory Response, Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis and Alvarado Scoring Systems.
Article in Annals of coloproctology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of RIPASA and ALVARADO scores for risk assessment of acute appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Validation of the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) Score.World journal of surgery · 2021Trial
- Evaluating the Diagnostic Accuracy of the Alvarado Score and Abdominal Ultrasound for Acute Appendicitis: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2024Article
- Performance and diagnostic accuracy of scoring systems in adult patients with suspected appendicitis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- A systematic review and meta-regression for validation of the Alvarado score as a tool for predicting acute appendicitis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023Article
- Article
- Comparison of Appendicitis Scoring Systems in Childhood Appendicitis.Turkish archives of pediatrics · 2022Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy Rates of Appendicitis Scoring Systems for the Stratified Age Groups.Emergency medicine international · 2022Article
- Acute appendicitis-advances and controversies.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021Review
- Diagnosis of acute appendicitis based on clinical scores: is it a myth or reality?Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2021Review
- Preoperatively predicting the pathological types of acute appendicitis using machine learning based on peripheral blood biomarkers and clinical features: a retrospective study.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- [Recommendations on treatment of acute appendicitis : Recommendations of an expert group based on the current literature].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2020Review
- Can RIPASA Scoring System Predict the Pathological Stage of Acute Appendicitis?Emergency medicine international · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAcute appendicitis (AA) is one of the most common causes of an acute abdomen. The accuracies of the Alvarado and the acute inflammatory response (AIR) scores in the diagnosis of appendicitis is very low in Asian populations, so a new scoring system, the Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) system, was designed recently. We applied and compared the Alvarado, AIR, and RIPASA scores in the diagnoses of appendicitis in the Iranian population.
methodsWe prospectively compared the RIPASA, Alvarado, and AIR systems by applying them to 100 patients. All the scores were calculated for patients who presented with right quadrant pain. Appendectomies were performed; then, the postoperative pathology reports were correlated with the scores. Scores of 8, 7, and 5 or more are optimal cutoffs for the RIPASA, Alvarado, and AIR scoring systems, respectively. The sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values, negative predictive values (NPVs), positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) for the 3 systems were determined.
resultsThe sensitivity and the specificity of the RIPASA score were 93.18% and 91.67%, respectively. The sensitivities of the Alvarado and the AIR scores were both 78.41%. The specificities of the Alvarado and the AIR scores were 100% and 91.67%, respectively. The RIPASA score correctly classified 93% of all patients confirmed with histological AA compared with 78.41% for the Alvarado and the AIR scores.
conclusionThe RIPASA scoring system had more sensitivity, better NPV, a positive LR, and a less negative LR for the Iranian population whereas the Alvarado scoring system was more specific.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.