ArticleIrish journal of medical science2024
Validation and comparison of two new scoring systems for the prediction of complicated versus uncomplicated appendicitis.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk prediction and effect evaluation of complicated appendicitis based on XGBoost modeling.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Clinical Scoring Systems to Diagnose Complicated Acute Appendicitis in a Rural Hospital: Are They Good Enough?Cureus · 2024Article
- External Validation of Adult Prediction Models for Complicated Appendicitis After Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography: A Single-Centre Study.ANZ journal of surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo validate the Atema and APSI scoring systems in the diagnosis of complicated vs uncomplicated appendicitis. To compare these scoring systems with computed tomography (CT) imaging alone to establish which method provides most accurate prediction of complicated vs uncomplicated appendicitis.
methodsThis was a retrospective review of a sample of 160 patients that underwent appendicectomy and CT imaging for suspected appendicitis between 2018 and 2021 in a tertiary university teaching hospital. Each scoring system was applied to all patients and results analysed and compared with the effectiveness of CT imaging,
results32.5% (n = 52) were found to have complicated appendicitis and 67.5% (n = 108) uncomplicated appendicitis. Application of the Atema score to our cohort of patients resulted in a sensitivity 76.9% [CI (64.2, 87.5), specificity 58.7% [CI (48.9, 68.1)], PPV 47.1% [CI (40.5, 53.8) and NPV 84.2% [CI (76.0, 89.9)]. By comparison, the APSI yielded a sensitivity 50.9% [CI (36.6, 65.4)], specificity 76.1% [CI (67.0, 87.8)], PPV 50% [CI (39.2, 60.6)] and NPV 76% [CI (71.1, 81.7)]. Radiology prediction of complicated vs uncomplicated appendicitis with CT imaging showed sensitivity 46% [CI (32.2, 60.5)], specificity 79%; [CI (69.8, 86)], PPV 51% [CI (39.6, 62.5)] and NPV 75% [CI (69.8, 79.9)].
conclusionBy comparing the APSI and Atema et al. scoring systems with CT reporting in our hospital, it appears that the Atema may confer some benefit in stratifying patient risk of complicated versus uncomplicated appendicitis. Further larger scale prospective studies are required.
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.