Observational studyMedicine2025
Diagnostic efficacy of ultrasound and computed tomography for acute appendicitis: A single center retrospective study.
Observational study in Medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of ultrasonography (US) and computed tomography (CT) examination for acute appendicitis (AA). A total of 41 patients with suspected AA were enrolled in this study. CT scan was performed in 24 patients, and US was performed in 17 patients. Both CT scan and US were performed in 7 patients. The primary outcomes were the performance characteristics (sensitivity, specificity) of US and CT in the patients with suspected AA. The secondary outcomes included the diagnostic accuracy of CT and US. By using US, 6 patients (35%) were incorrectly diagnosed and 2 other patients (12%) had equivocal results. By using CT as the primary diagnostic tool, 4 patients (17%) were misdiagnosed and 8 patients (33%) had equivocal results. Even if the equivocal results of CT and US were excluded from the calculation, the sensitivity and specificity of CT was 88% and 71% respectively, while the sensitivity and specificity of US was 73% and 50%, respectively. Although CT and US are believed to be reliable diagnostic tool to precisely diagnose AA. The rate of negative appendectomy still remains high. There is a need to develop a more accurate methods to diagnose AA, and therefore rate of negative appendectomy can be reduced.
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.