ArticleCureus2021
Predictive Efficacy of Delta Neutrophil Index in Diagnosis of Acute and Complicated Appendicitis.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of the Delta Neutrophil Index in Determining the Severity of Intrahepatic Cholestasis of Pregnancy.Saudi medical journal · 2026Article
- Role of immature granulocyte and blood biomarkers in predicting perforated acute appendicitis using machine learning model.World journal of clinical cases · 2025Article
- A Usefulness of Delta Neutrophil Index (DNI) for Prediction of 28 Day Mortality in Patients with Pneumonia-Induced Sepsis in the Intensive Care Unit.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- How do inflammatory marker dynamics shift with acute calculous cholecystitis severity?Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2025Article
- Delta neutrophil index, CRP/albumin ratio, procalcitonin, immature granulocytes, and HALP score in acute appendicitis: Best performing biomarker?Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The delta neutrophil index has been accepted as an inflammatory marker, especially in sepsis. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the delta neutrophil index in predicting acute and complicated appendicitis. Methods Patients aged 18 years and over who underwent appendectomy were reviewed. The demographic features, pathology results, and the delta neutrophil index, leukocyte, and C-reactive protein levels were evaluated. According to the pathology results, the patients were grouped as those having a normal appendix or acute appendicitis. Results In this study, 74 (8.1%) of the patients had a normal appendix, and 718 (86.1%) were diagnosed with simple appendicitis, and 116 (13.9%) with complicated appendicitis. In the acute appendicitis group, the leukocyte value and delta neutrophil index were found to be statistically significantly higher than in the normal appendix group. Age, C-reactive protein, and the delta neutrophil index were statistically significantly higher in the complicated appendicitis group. In the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for the prediction of acute appendicitis, the area under the curve values for leukocyte and the delta neutrophil index were calculated as 0.780 and 0.741, respectively. In predicting complicated appendicitis, the area under the curve of the delta neutrophil index and C-reactive protein were 0.671 and 0.709, respectively. Conclusion The delta neutrophil index was more significant than leukocyte values in diagnosing acute and complicated appendicitis. We consider that the delta neutrophil index is an effective and reliable parameter in diagnosing acute appendicitis and differentiating simple/complicated appendicitis, especially when combined with the analysis of leukocyte and C-reactive protein.
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.