ArticleCureus2025
Accuracy of the Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) and Alvarado Score for Acute Appendicitis: A Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundAcute appendicitis is the most frequent surgical emergency worldwide, but due to atypical symptoms, its diagnosis is challenging. The Alverado score is widely used but is limited in Asian populations, prompting the development of the Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) score. This study aims to compare the accuracy of both systems. METHODOLOGY: A prospective study was conducted at Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar, from August 2024 to September 2025, including 100 patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Both RIPASA and Alvarado scores were assessed and compared with intraoperative findings using the Gomez classification. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall diagnostic accuracy were calculated.
resultsThe mean patient age was 28.1 years; 54% were male. Common presenting features were anorexia (90%), tenderness (99%), rebound tenderness (94%), and pain migration (76%). The RIPASA score showed sensitivity of 91.9%, specificity of 64.3%, PPV of 94.1%, NPV of 56.3%, and accuracy 88%. The Alvarado score demonstrated sensitivity of 94.2%, specificity of 57.1%, PPV of 93.1%, NPV of 61.5%, and accuracy 89%. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.78 for RIPASA and 0.76 for Alvarado.
conclusionBoth the RIPASA and Alvarado scores demonstrated high accuracy, with Alvarado showing slightly higher sensitivity (94.2% vs. 91.9%) and RIPASA offering better specificity (64.3% vs. 57.1%). Overall, both scoring systems proved reliable tools for diagnosis, helping reduce negative appendectomy rates and improving clinical decision-making.
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.