ArticleCureus2022
The Role of Alvarado Score in Predicting Acute Appendicitis and Its Severity in Correlation to Histopathology: A Retrospective Study in a Qatar Population.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as an adjunct to clinical scoring systems for diagnosing perforated appendicitis in children: prospective cohort study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of the Modified Alvarado Score and Serum C-reactive Protein in Acute Appendicitis.Cureus · 2024Article
- Assessment of Alvarado criteria, ultrasound, CRP, and their combination in patients with suspected acute appendicitis: a single centre study.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Observational
- Don't Forget About New Pathology.Cureus · 2024Article
- RAMA-WeRA Risk Score in Predicting the Ruptured Appendicitis in Emergency Department; a Multicenter Study for External Validation.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Significance of Histopathology of Appendectomy Specimens: Analysis From a Teaching Hospital of Pakistan.Cureus · 2023Article
- When Not to Operate on Acute Cases-A Surgeon's Perspective on Rapid Assessment of Emergency Abdominopelvic Computed Tomography.Journal of imaging · 2023Review
- Adult appendicitis score versus Alvarado score: A comparative study in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.Surgery open science · 2023Article
- Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis: A Cross-sectional Study on Alvarado's Score from a Low Income Country.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/objective Acute appendicitis (AA) is one of the most common surgical emergencies that require a proper diagnosis to avoid a negative outcome in the case of missed or delayed diagnosis. Our study aims to assess the diagnostic power of the Alvarado score and the prediction of the severity of acute appendicitis in correlation to intraoperative findings and the final histopathology (HP) result. Methods This retrospective study was applied to 1,303 patients with clinically proven acute appendicitis (AA) and available HP results. We correlated Alvarado score to the gold standard HP and intraoperative findings. We selected the cutoff point of Alvarado at 5 and 7 as they were the most frequent cutoff value mentioned in the literature and based on the ROC curve in this study to assess sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Results The mean age of the study cohort is 33.3 ± 9.5 years, with a male predominance (75.8%). The negative appendectomy (NA) rate was 4%. The operative complication rate was 1.2%, and we recorded one mortality case (0.1%). The diagnostic evidence of AA was in 95.9% of cases. Alvarado score ≥ 7 presented sensitivity and specificity of 66.4% and 69.8%, respectively, with PPV of 98.1% and NPV of 8.1%, with an accuracy of 66.5%. For Alvarado score ≥ 5, the sensitivity was 91.2%, specificity was 22.6%, PPV was 96.5%, NPV was 9.8%, and accuracy was 88.4%. In addition, we demonstrated statistical significance between Alvarado risk stratification with HP and intraoperative grades (p = 0.001 each). Conclusion The Alvarado scoring system alone is not enough to diagnose AA with unsatisfactory sensitivity and specificity. However, it is a good indicator of the severity of AA that we can depend on to prioritize those patients waiting for surgery.
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.