ArticleCureus2024
Efficacy of the Modified Alvarado Scoring System and Radiologic Studies in Diagnosing Appendicitis in Children: A Retrospective Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- The fascial involvement score retains diagnostic value for complicated appendicitis on CT when specific signs are absent.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Comparison of the Alvarado Score with Alternative Diagnostic Tools in Pediatric Acute Appendicitis: A Literature Review.Pediatric reports · 2026Review
- Non-operative Management of Uncomplicated Appendicitis: A Review of Indications, Safety, and Clinical Algorithms.Cureus · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAppendicitis is a common diagnostic challenge in pediatric patients. Based on clinical and laboratory findings, the modified Alvarado scoring system (MAS) is commonly used to assess the likelihood of appendicitis. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of MAS compared to radiologic findings and its components in the diagnosis of appendicitis in children.
methodsThis retrospective study involved 177 pediatric patients with abdominal pain. The MAS, radiologic examinations (ultrasound), and physical examination findings were evaluated. Data on MAS, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were analyzed. Chi-square tests were used to determine significant differences between MAS and radiologic findings.
resultsThe study included 92 males (52%) and 85 females (48%), with the majority (95, 53.7%) in the age group of 7-10 years. Of the 177 patients, 46 (26%) had positive radiologic findings for appendicitis. The MAS showed a sensitivity of 81%, a specificity of 69%, a PPV of 48%, and an NPV of 91%. A significant difference in the MAS was found between patients with positive and negative radiologic findings (p = 0.001). Compared with ultrasound, MAS showed a PPV of 39%, an NPV of 14%, a sensitivity of 48%, a specificity of 80%, an accuracy of 73%, and an odds ratio of 3.69. Rebound tenderness on physical examination also showed a significant association with appendicitis (p = 0.001).
conclusionsThis study highlights the potential of the MAS as a valuable tool for the initial assessment of appendicitis in children, demonstrating high sensitivity and NPV. Although it has a moderate PPV and specificity, suggesting efficacy in ruling out appendicitis, it should be supplemented with radiologic findings for a definitive diagnosis. Tenderness remains a crucial clinical sign, emphasizing its importance on physical examination. These findings should guide future research to refine the MAS components and explore complementary diagnostic strategies to improve the accuracy of pediatric appendicitis diagnosis.
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.