ArticleSurgery in practice and science2022
CT scans do not reliably identify appendicoliths in acute appendicitis.
Article in Surgery in practice and science, 2022. 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.
- Appendicolith detection in dual-energy CT of adult acute appendicitis: comparing portovenous phase and virtual noncontrast with true noncontrast images.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- CT of appendicoliths in adult appendicitis: clinical significance and characteristics of overlooked cases.European radiology · 2024Article
- Appendicolith appendicitis: should we be operating sooner? A retrospective cohort study.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2024Article
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
Background: Both the CODA trial and the 2020 WSES Jerusalem guidelines concluded that nonoperative management of appendicitis (NOMA) was non-inferior for uncomplicated appendicitis but appendicoliths increase risk for complications. Thus "Appendicoliths on CT" are a relative contraindication to NOMA but accuracy of CT in identifying appendicoliths is just assumed. Materials and methods: We conducted an EMR review of 1552 appendectomy patients, who had pre-operative CT scans for suspected acute appendicitis from 2001-2019. Two radiologists reinterpreted images from 2011 and 2019 for presence of appendicoliths. Appendicoliths identified on CT were compared to appendicoliths in corresponding pathology specimens. Cohorts A (2001-10) & B (2011-19) were created on account of changes in CT scanners. PPV, NPV, sensitivity and specificity rates were calculated for contemporaneous readings and for 2011 and 2019 reinterpretations. Results: 397 CT scans were read as positive for appendicoliths; 167 for A, 230 for B. 246 corresponding specimens had appendicoliths. PPV was 62% overall; 69% for A, 57% for B. 1155 scans were negative for appendicoliths. 191 corresponding specimens had appendicoliths; NPV was 83% overall; 80% for A, 87% for B. 447 specimens had appendicoliths; only 246 were identified by CT. Sensitivity was 55% overall; 48% for A, 66% for B. Specificity was 86% overall (964/1115); 91% for A, 82% for B. Radiologist accuracies varied. Conclusions: Complicated appendicitis is often associated with appendicoliths. The assumption that CT identification of appendicoliths is reliable is unsupported by this study. CT finding of an appendicolith should not be used to exclude patients from antibiotics treatment but rather used in the shared decision-making conversation about management with patients.
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.