ArticleScientific reports2025
Diagnostic value of the MZXBTCH scoring system for acute complex appendicitis.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to develop a novel scoring model, assess its diagnostic value for complex appendicitis, and compare it with existing scoring systems. A total of 1,241 patients with acute appendicitis were included, comprising 868 patients in the modeling group (mean age, 35.6 ± 14.2 years; 52.4% men) and 373 patients in the validation group (mean age, 36.2 ± 13.8 years; 53.1% men). Among them, 28.4% (346/1,241) were diagnosed with complex appendicitis. The distribution of clinical features, laboratory results, and imaging findings was comparable between the two groups. The data from the modeling group were used to develop the MZXBTCH scoring system, which subsequently validated using the validation group data. Based on postoperative pathological diagnoses, the validation group (n = 373) was scored using the Alvarado, Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha (RIPASA), Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR), and MZXBTCH scoring systems. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to compare the diagnostic efficacy of these scoring systems for complex appendicitis. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified preoperative body temperature (odds ratio (OR) = 1.104; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.067-1.143; P < 0.001), preoperative C-reactive protein (CRP) level (OR = 1.002; 95% CI 1.001-1.002; P < 0.001), lymphocyte percentage (OR = 0.994; 95% CI 0.990-0.996; P < 0.001), appendiceal fecal stones (OR = 1.127; 95% CI 1.068-1.190; P < 0.001), periappendiceal fat stranding (OR = 1.133; 95% CI 1.072-1.198; P < 0.001), and appendix diameter (OR = 1.013; 95% CI 1.004-1.022; P < 0.001) as independent risk factors for complex appendicitis. Using R programming, a nomogram based on these independent risk factors was constructed to derive MZXBTCH scores. ROC curve analysis of the MZXBTCH model indicated an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.773. ROC curve analysis revealed that the AUC values of the Alvarado, RIPASA, AIR, and MZXBTCH scoring systems were 0.66, 0.68, 0.76, and 0.82, respectively. Sensitivities were 64.29%, 66.33%, 68.37%, and 74.49%, and specificities were 55.64%, 60%, 75.64%, and 76.36%, respectively. Positive predictive values were 0.34, 0.37, 0.5, and 0.53, while negative predictive values were 0.81, 0.83, 0.87, and 0.89. Accuracy rates were 0.58, 0.62, 0.74, and 0.76, respectively. The MZXBTCH scoring system demonstrated higher sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy compared with the Alvarado, RIPASA, and AIR scoring systems in distinguishing complex 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.