ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2023
Ultrasound vs. clinical diagnosis-which is better in diagnosing acute appendicitis?: a cohort study.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retrospective Development of an AI Model Combining Ultrasound and Clinical Data for Pediatric Appendicitis Differentiation.Emergency medicine international · 2025Article
- A Prospective Comparative Study on the Clinical Diagnostic Performance of Blood Inflammatory Markers in Acute Appendicitis.Journal of inflammation research · 2024Article
- Ultrasound vs. clinical diagnosis-which is better in diagnosing acute appendicitis?: a cohort study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute appendicitis is one of the most common causes of right iliac fossa pain which often warrants surgical management. In many cases, abdominal ultrasonography (USS) is done to confirm the diagnosis however negative appendicectomy is common due to atypical presentations and different visualisation rate. The unnecessary operative intervention can result in complications. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy between clinical diagnosis and USS in diagnosing acute appendicitis to avoid negative appendicectomy and prevent further complications. Method: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in a district general hospital which 1046 cases of laparoscopic appendicectomy were included and examined for the use of USS or clinical diagnosis. The sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive value in USS and data in clinical evaluation were analysed for their accuracy in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis based on the histology results post appendicectomy. Results: Clinical diagnosis without preoperative imaging was found to have a significantly lower negative appendicectomy rate of 27.20% compared with 42.67% in those who underwent ultrasound. 44.64% of the patients were misdiagnosed with a normal USS result who had a subsequent positive histology of appendicitis. Conclusions: USS has been shown to be less sensitive for diagnosing acute appendicitis which results in high negative appendicectomy and misdiagnosis rate. With an increasing burden of health budget and resources, cautious and appropriate use of USS would avoid the misdiagnosis and prevent further complications. Thorough clinical evaluation remains an important first step and role in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.
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.