ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Current usage and diagnostic performance of cross-sectional imaging in patients with suspected acute appendicitis: a national survey in China.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe role of cross-sectional imaging in the management of acute appendicitis (AA) is contentious. This study aimed to investigate the current usage and diagnostic performance of ultrasound (US) and computed tomography (CT).
methodsA national survey was conducted by a core group from The National Ultrasound Quality and Control Center of China among radiologists practicing in medical institutions equipped with emergency departments and regularly performing appendectomies. Radiologists participated by completing the survey online from August 2022 to August 2023 after reviewing medical records of at least 40 patients with suspected AA. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value and likelihood ratios were calculated for US and CT, respectively. Diagnostic performance of US between hospital subgroups were also compared.
resultsA total of 141 questionnaires were submitted and 118 were eligible, each representing a distinct hospital. A total of 1844 children and 4165 adults were included. There were 76.4% patients underwent US studies, while 23.9% underwent CT studies. Higher percentage of children underwent US studies than adults (82.2% vs. 73.9%, P = 0.000). In children, the sensitivity and specificity of US were 89% and 90%, and of CT were 90% and 48%. In adults, the sensitivity and specificity of US were 92% and 84%, and of CT were 94% and 79%. The Likelihood ratios of US were higher in specialized hospitals (children's or children's and women's hospitals) than general hospitals (34.1 vs. 6.43).
conclusionUS is more commonly used than CT for diagnosing AA in both adults and children. The diagnostic performance of US is comparable to CT. These findings underscore the recognition of US in clinical practice as a low-cost, non-radiative tool.
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.