ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2022
Sensitivity and specificity of the Alvarado Score for the timely differential diagnosis of acute appendicitis for a case series in Samoa.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Complicated appendicitis in low- and lower-middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.ANZ journal of surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Modified APPEND Score for the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis in a New Zealand Pasifika Population.World journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of low dose CT-Scan abdomen in patients with clinical features of acute appendicitis.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis: A Cross-sectional Study on Alvarado's Score from a Low Income Country.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2023Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTimely diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA) is essential for optimal management of abdominal pain emergency presentations. Improved diagnostic procedures should minimise progression to complicated appendicitis, as well as reduce the number of unwanted surgical interventions. The Alvarado Score is an important tool to assist with the management of AA based on clinically predictive values. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the Alvarado Score as an instrument for the diagnosis of AA in our low-resourced context of Samoa. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe lead investigator performed a retrospective clinical data review design of all patients admitted to the Tupua Tamasese Meaole Hospital Surgical Unit for AA from January 2015 to December 2016. Exclusion criteria were appendiceal abscess and/or mass, and final diagnosis 'not acute appendicitis'. Age, sex, village, Alvarado Score, Ultrasound Scan Result, surgical management, and histopathology result were the main variables entered into the SPSS statistical software package for analysis.
resultsOf the 225 patients (2-86 years) admitted for AA, 67.1% (N = 151) underwent appendicectomy, and the remaining 32.9% (N = 74) were treated with antibiotics. An Alvarado Score (≥5) showed 91.7% sensitivity and 50% specificity for AA. There was a significant relationship between the Alvarado Score and the Ultrasound Scan for AA (p < 0.05). Histology results showed complicated AA in 68.6% (N = 94) of cases. The negative appendicectomy rate was 2.6%.
conclusionsThe Alvarado Score is an effective tool for the timely differential diagnosis of AA in our Samoan context. The high rate of complicated acute appendicitis warrants investigation to further improve the management of AA in the Pacific Island setting.
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.