ArticlePloS one2022
Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography in adults with suspected acute appendicitis at the emergency department in a private tertiary hospital in Tanzania.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe increasing incidence of acute appendicitis in sub-Saharan Africa emphasizes the need for accurate and reliable diagnostic tools. However, the variability in the diagnostic performance of computed tomography for suspected acute appendicitis coupled with comparatively higher negative appendectomy rates in this setting highlight a possible concern regarding the diagnostic accuracy. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of a computed tomography scan for suspected acute appendicitis at the emergency department in Tanzania.
methodsA retrospective diagnostic accuracy study was conducted from July to October 2020. All patients above 14 years of age who presented at the emergency department with right iliac fossa abdominal pain of fewer than ten days and underwent computed tomography for suspected acute appendicitis were evaluated, and the Alvarado score was computed. Histological diagnosis and clinical follow-up of 14 days were considered the reference standard. Ethical clearance was sought from the Aga Khan University Ethical review committee.
results176 patients were included in this study. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy were 100% (95% CI 91.8-100), 96.9% (95% CI 92.2-99.1), and 96.9% (95% CI 93.1-98.3), respectively. The mean Alvarado score in those without acute appendicitis was 4 (95% CI 3.7-4.3) compared to a mean score of 6.6 (95% CI 6.0-7.2) amongst those with acute appendicitis. The area under the receiver operator characteristics curve of computed tomography was 98.4%, and that of the Alvarado score was 84.1%.
conclusionsThe diagnostic performance of computed tomography in this study is similar to that established elsewhere. However, the Alvarado score is not routinely used for the initial screening of suspected acute appendicitis patients. A threshold of Alvarado score of 4 as a guide to conduct computed tomography for suspected acute appendicitis would have decreased computed tomography use by 50%, and missed 4 cases. Implementation studies that address Alvarado score use should be conducted.
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.