ArticleCureus2025
Assessing the Efficacy of Ultrasound Imaging for Diagnosing Appendicitis in Male Patients: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInflammation in the vermiform region of the appendix is referred to as appendicitis. It can be diagnosed using clinical assessment and various imaging modalities. Among other imaging modalities, ultrasound (US) is an easily interpretable, cost-effective, and portable method. Unfortunately, the diagnosis of appendicitis presents a challenge due to its non-specific clinical presentation. In this respect, this study aimed to evaluate US sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing appendicitis in male patients.
methodsThis study was conducted at the Altnagelvin Hospital, Londonderry. We examined retrospective data on 237 male patients aged 14 years and above who presented with appendicitis and underwent US of the abdomen and/or appendix. We identified patients with confirmed appendicitis and/or secondary signs on imaging and those who underwent appendectomy with established inflammation at histology.
resultsIn our study, the majority of patients were between the ages of 21 and 40 years (57.8%), with a smaller proportion of patients under 20 years (31.3%), between 41 and 60 years (7.0%), and over 60 years (3.9%). Interestingly, 9.3% of patients underwent appendectomy despite not having US-revealed appendicitis and the absence of secondary signs, while 24% of patients with no US-revealed appendicitis but with the presence of secondary signs underwent appendectomy, with 12% having pathological evidence of appendicitis. The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound for diagnosing appendicitis were 81% and 96%, respectively. The proportion of US-revealed appendicitis was 20.5%, whereas other modalities (OM) showed positive results in 8.73% of cases. No association was observed between US-revealed appendicitis and comorbidities (p=0.99), whereas a significant association (p<0.01) was observed between appendicitis revealed by OM-based investigations (in particular, CT) and comorbidities.
conclusionUS imaging could be a useful tool for diagnosing appendicitis, particularly in male patients; also, it can prevent unnecessary surgical intervention. Our findings suggest that US is an effective choice of imaging for initial diagnosis. However, in the case of associated pathologies, CT is the best choice for further evaluation.
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.