ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Using a sum of the cross diameters of the appendix measured on ultrasonography as a criterion can more effectively predict acute appendicitis.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Non-Radiologist-Performed Ultrasound for Diagnosing Acute Appendicitis in Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate whether using a sum of the cross diameters on the transverse section of the appendix as a criterion can improve the diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA).
methodsIn this retrospective study, 433 patients with AA and 207 patients with a normal appendix were assigned to the training and validation groups in a proportion of 7:3. Each group was divided into subgroups consisting of patients with AA and a normal appendix. The training group included 144 patients with a normal appendix and 302 patients with AA, while the validation group comprised 63 patients with a normal appendix and 131 patients with AA. Graded compression ultrasound was performed to evaluate the appendix, and the cross diameters on the transverse section were measured, with one of them used as the maximum outer diameter (MOD).
resultsThe cut-off value of the sum of cross diameters for predicting AA was 13.5 mm or more. When it was applied to evaluate the appendix in the training group, a sensitivity of 98.7%, specificity of 99.3%, positive predictive value of 99.7%, negative predictive value of 97.3%, and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.990 were achieved. Which were significantly higher than those (except for a sensitivity of 99.3%) obtained using the criteria of MOD ≥ 6 mm. Similar results were obtained in the validation group.
conclusionUsing a sum of cross diameters of the appendix of 13.5 mm or more as a criterion to diagnose AA can yield excellent diagnostic performance, and can replace the current criteria of MOD of 6 mm or more. KEY POINTS: Question A MOD of the appendix ≥ 6 mm is a recommended criterion for diagnosing AA, but often results in a false-positive diagnosis. Findings Using the sum of the cross diameters of the appendix ≥ 13.5 mm as a criterion yielded significantly higher diagnostic performance than the recommended criteria. Clinical relevance The sum of the cross diameters of the appendix is a better criterion for the evaluation of patients with suspected AA, exhibiting significantly higher diagnostic performance than the MOD of the appendix.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39427022What 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.