Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32258184›Full record

ArticleAIMS public health2020

Comparison between the specificity and sensitivity of the RIPASA and Alvarado Scoring systems in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis among patients with complaints of right iliac fossa.

Seyed Ashkan Tabibzadeh Dezfuli, Reza Yazdani, Mohammadjavad Khorasani, Seyed Alireza Hosseinikhah

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AIMS public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Comparison of the effectiveness of RIPASA and modified Alvarado scores in identifying perforated appendicitis.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Seyed Ashkan Tabibzadeh DezfuliAssistant Professor, Trauma and Emergency Medicine Research Center, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran.
Reza YazdaniAssistant Professor, Trauma and Emergency Medicine Research Center, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran.
Mohammadjavad KhorasaniHead of Department of Emergency Medicine, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran.
Seyed Alireza HosseinikhahEmergency Medicine Specialist, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran.
Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAcute appendicitis is one of the common prevalent surgical emergencies. Various techniques, such as Alvarado Score are used for diagnosis it. This study was conducted to compare the Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems in patients referred to Hospital with complaints of right iliac fossa pain. METHODOLOGY: This descriptive-analytic cross-sectional study was conducted in patients over 15 years with abdominal pain referred to emergency room of the Hospital. The data collection form was completed for each patient based on history and examinations and then examined by a surgeon. The pathological specimens were examined and the pathological outcomes of each patient were recorded in the relevant information collection form and finally analyzed.

resultsThe results for the Alvarado system showed that 42.1%, 29.2% and 28.80% of the patients had a low probability, moderate probability and high probability of appendicitis, respectively. The findings for RIPASA system showed that 19.3% of patients definitely had appendicitis. The sensitivity and specificity of the Alvarado scoring system were 53.95% and 70.18%, respectively. Positive and negative predictive values of Alvarado were 70.69% and 53.33%, respectively. In contrast, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the RIPASA scoring system were 93.42%, 45.61%, 69.61%, and 83.87%, respectively.

conclusionOn the basis of the results, the RIPASA scoring system is a better system. Since the best cut-off point is 6 for Alvarado and 7.75 for RIPASA, it is better to use the values as a benchmark for the systems.

Indexed as

AlvaradoappendicitisRIPASA

Identifiers

PMID32258184
PMCPMC7109537
OpenAlexW2997183048

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.