Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34383146›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2022

Comparison of MRI appendix biometrics in children with and without acute appendicitis.

Eric L Tung, Grayson L Baird, Rama S Ayyala, Cassandra Sams, Thaddeus W Herliczek, David W Swenson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
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

6 authors.

Eric L Tung, Cambridge, USA. EricTung34@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1628-9032
Grayson L BairdLifespan Biostatistics Core, Rhode Island Hospital, 593 Eddy Street, Providence, RI, 02903, USA.
Rama S AyyalaDepartment of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Ave, Cincinnati, OH, 45229, USA.
Cassandra SamsDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Rhode Island Hospital - Hasbro Children's Hospital, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 593 Eddy St, Providence, RI, 02903, USA.
Thaddeus W HerliczekDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Rhode Island Hospital - Hasbro Children's Hospital, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 593 Eddy St, Providence, RI, 02903, USA.
David W SwensonDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Rhode Island Hospital - Hasbro Children's Hospital, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 593 Eddy St, Providence, RI, 02903, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe goal of this study is to improve MRI-specific diagnostic criteria for pediatric appendicitis through comparison of normal and abnormal appendix-related imaging features.

methodsA retrospective multireader-multicase design was used, including non-contrast MRI performed for suspected pediatric appendicitis following non-diagnostic US from January 2014 to December 2017. Positive diagnosis was defined by surgical pathology or symptom resolution after antibiotics. Four pediatric radiologists independently graded study biometrics while blinded to clinical data. Balanced complete block design was used to determine performance characteristics.

resultsGlobal diagnosis of appendicitis (208 studies) had sensitivity 90.6% and specificity 97.7%. Median appendix diameter was 10.4 mm among positive cases and 5.8 mm among negative cases (p < 0.001) with an optimal diagnostic cutoff of 7.5 mm (sensitivity 89.4%, specificity 86.5%). Median appendix wall thickness was 2.6 mm among positive cases and 1.7 mm among negative cases (p < 0.001) with an optimal diagnostic cutoff of 2.3 mm (sensitivity 63.1%, specificity 82.9%). Performance characteristics for qualitative appendix features included distinguishable appendix luminal signal (sensitivity 89.6%, specificity 83.7%), intraluminal fluid-signal intensity (sensitivity 63.6%; specificity 52.3%), intraluminal signal intermediate between fluid and bowel wall (sensitivity 91.0%; specificity 37.1%), appendicolith (sensitivity 34.9%; specificity 100.0%), intraluminal layering (sensitivity 25.9%; specificity 100.0%), hyperintense appendix wall signal (sensitivity 31.7%; specificity 100.0%), periappendiceal fluid (sensitivity 66.8%; specificity 72.5%), periappendiceal fatty edema (sensitivity 91.3%; specificity 94.5%), and free pelvic fluid (sensitivity 88.5%; specificity 26.0).

conclusionsThis study provides MRI-specific performance of pediatric appendicitis quantitative and qualitative biometrics with peri-appendiceal fatty edema, appendix diameter > 7.5 mm, and distinguishable appendix luminal signal demonstrating the highest overall accuracy. KEY POINTS: • This retrospective multireader-multicase study characterized magnetic resonance imaging-specific diagnostic accuracy of quantitative and qualitative biometrics for pediatric appendicitis. • The optimal quantitative diagnostic thresholds for an abnormal pediatric appendix at MRI included diameter and wall thickness of 7.5 mm and 2.3 mm, respectively. • Qualitative imaging biometrics with high specificity for pediatric appendicitis on MRI included the presence of distinguishable appendix lumen signal from wall signal, appendicolith, intraluminal fluid-fluid layer, appendix wall hyperintensity, and peri-appendiceal fatty edema.

Indexed as

AppendicitisAppendixBiometryChildDiagnosis, DifferentialHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityAppendicitisMagnetic resonance imagingPediatricsSensitivity and specificity

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.