ArticleHealth science reports2023
Alvarado or RIPASA? Which one do you use to diagnose acute appendicitis?: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Health science reports, 2023. 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.
- Comparison of physical examination, laboratory and radiologic findings in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2026Article
- Alvarado or RIPASA? Which one do you use to diagnose acute appendicitis?: A cross-sectional study.Health science reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Acute appendicitis is one of the most common causes of lower abdominal pain, which is considered a general surgical emergency worldwide. The present study aimed to compare the diagnostic value of Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) and Alvarado score systems in diagnosing acute appendicitis. Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted at Shahid Sadoughi and Shahid Rahnemoon Hospitals in Yazd between September 2020 and February 2020. The statistical population consisted of all of the patients referred to the Accident and Emergency department with right iliac fossa (RIF) pain. All patients were scored using Alvarado and RIPASA scoring system. sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were computed by using SPSS statistical software. An receiver operating characteristic curve were plotted. Results: In present study, one hundred suspected patients with appendicitis who underwent appendectomy were evaluated. The mean age of our study population was 25.2 ± 12.1 years, and the gender distribution was 57% males and 43% females. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of RIPASA were 86.6%, 66.7%, 92.2%, and 52.2%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of Alvarado score were 67.1%, 72.2%, 91.7%, 32.5%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy was 68% for Alvarado score and 83% for RIPASA. The area under the curve for RIPASA (0.87) was more than that for Alvarado score (0.77). Conclusion: The RIPASA score system had higher sensitivity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy than the Alvarado one. It is recommended for the physician and surgeon to evaluate patients with RIF pain using the RIPASA score.
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.