ArticleThe British journal of radiology2019
Improving diagnostic accuracy in clinically ambiguous paediatric appendicitis: a retrospective review of ultrasound and pathology findings with focus on the non-visualised appendix.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2019. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasonographic evaluation of cecal appendix diameter in pediatric population.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2022Article
- Reply to: Validity of ultrasound in predicting acute appendicitis among children, keeping histopathology as gold standard: Methodological issues.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare pre-operative ultrasound to histopathological results and retrospectively assess the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in paediatric appendicitis.
methods5 year review of all appendectomies performed in patients <16 years old in a tertiary referral university hospital. 983 patients had an appendicectomy over the time period while 189 patients had a preoperative ultrasound. We retrospectively reviewed all of the preoperative imaging in conjunction with the reports for the 189 patients; our aim was to determine the sensitivity of preoperative ultrasound for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.
resultsOf the 189 patients who had an ultrasound, 102 had histology positive for appendicitis and 87 had normal histology. Sensitivity overall was 72.55% [95% confidence interval (CI) 62.82 to 80.92] and specificity was 77.01% (95% CI 66.75 to 85.36). A suggested ultrasound diagnosis of appendicitis made positive pathology three times more likely and a normal ultrasound made positive pathology three times less likely [positive-predictive value 3.16 (95% CI 2.11 to 4.72) negative predictive value 0.36 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.50)]. 77% (67/87) of the patients whose pathology was ultimately normal had an ultrasound which was either normal or suggested an alternative diagnosis. However, in the 33 (17%) of patients with a non-visualised appendix, no secondary signs of inflammation or alternative diagnosis 16 (48%) had pathologically confirmed appendicitis.
conclusionUltrasound has the potential to improve diagnostic accuracy in clinically ambiguous appendicitis. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This paper furthers the evidence on the efficacy of ultrasound as a diagnostic tool in acute appendicitis in children, especially when the diagnosis is clinically equivocal. It also sheds further light on the "non-visualized appendix" with almost half of these patients having pathologically confirmed appendicitis; meaning advanced imaging with CT or MR may be indicated in this cohort.
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.