SynthesisPloS one2022
Comparison of RIPASA and ALVARADO scores for risk assessment of acute appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic value of the appendicitis inflammatory response (AIR) score. A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of RIPASA versus modified Alvarado score in acute appendicitis: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study from a tertiary centre in India.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Assessment of Acute Appendicitis in Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence.Cureus · 2026Review
- Diagnostic Accuracy and Educational Value of the RIPASA Score in Suspected Acute Appendicitis: A Prospective Study in an Emergency Department Training Setting.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the last decades, several clinical scores have been developed and currently used to improve the diagnosis and risk management of patients with suspected acute appendicitis (AA). However, some of them exhibited different values of sensitivity and specificity. We conducted a systematic review and metanalysis of epidemiological studies, which compared RIPASA and Alvarado scores for the diagnosis of AA.
methodsThis systematic review was conducted using PubMed and Web of Science databases. Selected studies had to compare RIPASA and Alvarado scores on patients with suspected AA and reported diagnostic parameters. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated by the Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Curve (HSROC) using STATA 17 (STATA Corp, College Station, TX) and MetaDiSc (version 1.4) software.
resultsWe included a total of 33 articles, reporting data from 35 studies. For the Alvarado score, the Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Curve (HSROC) model produced a summary sensitivity of 0.72 (95%CI = 0.66-0.77), and a summary specificity of 0.77 (95%CI = 0.70-0.82). For the RIPASA score, the HSROC model produced a summary sensitivity of 0.95 (95%CI = 0.92-0.97), and a summary specificity of 0.71 (95%CI = 0.60-0.80).
conclusionRIPASA score has higher sensitivity, but low specificity compared to Alvarado score. Since these scoring systems showed different sensitivity and specificity parameters, it is still necessary to develop novel scores for the risk assessment of patients with suspected AA.
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.