ArticleCureus2022
Comparison of Ultrasound and Computed Tomography Scanning Accuracy in Diagnosing Acute Appendicitis at King Abdulaziz University Hospital.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChoosing the most effective and accurate preoperative modality is one of the most significant tools in the clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA) to prevent negative appendectomies, diagnosis confusion, and delayed treatment. This decision making remains challenging to emergency physicians and surgeons which lead this study to determine the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound (US) and computed tomography (CT) in predicting AA using pathology reports as a reference at King Abdulaziz University Hospital (KAUH), Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
methodsThis study was conducted retrospectively at the Emergency Department, KAUH in Jeddah, Saudi, Arabia using 351 medical records with a clinical picture of acute appendicitis and no history of trauma. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated for ultrasound and computed tomography imaging. The positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were also evaluated.
resultsOut of the total 351 patients included in this study, 83 patients underwent surgical appendectomies and the pathology results revealed that 64 patients were diagnosed with AA while 19 showed a normal appendix. Of the 64 patients, 18 underwent US imaging while 62 underwent CT imaging. Compared to pathology results, US imaging results revealed that 12 out of 14 positive patients (85.7%) and only two out of four negative patients (50.0%) were correctly predicted while two out of 14 positive patients (14.3%) and two out of four negative patients (50.0%) were falsely diagnosed. On the other hand, CT imaging results revealed that 46 out of 49 positive patients (93.9%) and 9 out of 13 negative patients (69.2%) were correctly predicted while only three out of 49 positive patients (6.1%) and only four out of 13 negative patients (30.8%) were incorrectly diagnosed.
conclusionHaving an accuracy of 88.71%, sensitivity of 92.00%, and specificity of 75.00%, CT imaging was found to be more effective and accurate than US imaging which was only 77.78% accurate, 85.71% sensitive, and 50.00% specific. Statistical analyses also revealed that US results have a significant difference with pathology results (P= 0.130) while CT result has no significant difference (P <0.001).
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.