ArticleScientific reports2025
An evaluation of the comparative effectiveness of the RIPASA and Alvarado scoring systems in diagnosing acute appendicitis: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Complicated versus uncomplicated acute appendicitis: clinical characteristics, diagnostic scores, surgical management, and outcomes in a tertiary hospital in Mogadishu, Somalia.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Preoperative differentiation of acute appendicitis using NLR, SII, and maximum appendiceal diameter: a retrospective single-center diagnostic study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this research is to evaluate the diagnostic precision of the Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems in detecting acute appendicitis. This will be done by comparing their outcomes with histopathology, which is considered the most reliable benchmark for comparison. Accurate and prompt identification of acute appendicitis is crucial in order to avoid complications such as perforation and peritonitis. Over the years, several clinical scoring systems have been developed to aid in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The RIPASA (Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis) and Alvarado scoring systems are well recognised in the medical field. It is essential to do a comparison examination of these two scoring systems because to the possible changes in sensitivity, specificity, and overall diagnostic accuracy.This study included 145 male and female patients who presented with right iliac fossa discomfort and were thought to have acute appendicitis. Two diagnostic grading systems were used to guide surgical choices. Alvarado Score: Patients having a score of 7 or above were subjected to an appendectomy. RIPASA Score: Patients with a score less than 12 also had an appendectomy. 145 individuals included between the ages of 13 and 60, the Alvarado score was found to have a sensitivity of 34.4%, specificity of 75.8%, diagnostic accuracy of 51%, positive predictive value of 68.2%, and negative predictive value of 43.5% for diagnosing acute appendicitis. On the other hand, the RIPASA score performed better, with a sensitivity of 94.2%, specificity of 94.8%, diagnostic accuracy of 94%, positive predictive value of 96.5%, and negative predictive value of 91.6%. In the adult Pakistani population, the RIPASA scoring system demonstrates superior accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV compared to the Alvarado score, with a lower rate of negative appendectomies.
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.