ArticleAfrican journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence2020
A comparative study on the diagnostic validity of three scoring systems in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in emergency centres.
Article in African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hyperbilirubinemia as a Marker for Complicated Acute Appendicitis: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- The treatment of acute appendicitis in two age-based groups during COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective experience in a COVID-19 referral hospital.International journal of colorectal disease · 2022Article
- Acute appendicitis in elderly during Covid-19 pandemic.International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of combining C-Reactive protein and Alvarado Score among 2-to-20-year-old patients with acute appendicitis suspected presenting to Emergency Departments.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConsidering the inconsistencies on the validity scoring systems in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis, our aim was to compare the accuracy of the three Anderson, Alvarado and Alvarado + CRP scoring systems in the diagnosis of patients with suspected acute appendicitis.
methodsThis was a prospective observational study performed on patients 15-65 years complained of abdominal pain in the RLQ with a high clinical suspicion of acute appendicitis within two years. The scoring systems of Anderson, Alvarado, and Alvarado + CRP were recorded using a pre-prepared questionnaire by a senior emergency medicine assistant. Acute appendicitis was confirmed based on the histopathologic findings. Written informed consent was obtained from all the patients before entering the study.
results200 patients were enrolled in the study. In 159 cases diagnosed with appendicitis based on histopathological findings, Anderson, Alvarado, and Alvarado scoring systems were able to identify 121, 152, and 147 cases respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were 77%, 19%, 78%, 17 and 64% in Anderson, 95%, 7%, 75%, 30% and 77% in Alvarado, and 92%, 7%, 79%, 20%, and 75% in Alvarado + CRP scoring systems, respectively.
conclusionAnderson scoring system had lower diagnostic accuracy than the Alvarado system. The role of CRP as an adjunct test to increase the accuracy of the Alvarado scoring system in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis has been under question. Given the inconsistent results of the scoring systems in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis, there is a need to develop a more precise clinical-paraclinical scoring system for this condition.
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.