ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2026
Evaluation of the predictive value of scoring systems in diagnosis of acute appendicitis: a comparative prospective study.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2026. 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.
- Association Between Age and Severity of Acute Appendicitis in Adults.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Complicated versus uncomplicated acute appendicitis: clinical characteristics, diagnostic scores, surgical management, and outcomes in a tertiary hospital in Mogadishu, Somalia.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute Appendicitis stands as the leading cause of acute abdominal pain necessitating surgical intervention in the world. The initial clinical assessment of patients suspected of having acute appendicitis remains crucial. The aim is to quickly confirm or rule out the diagnosis to minimize delays, avoid unnecessary surgeries. AIM AND
objectivesThe aim of our study is to evaluate the predictive value of multiple scoring systems for Diagnosis of acute appendicitis cases with correlation between scores prediction results and surgical interventions results. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis a prospective study carried out in Mansoura university hospitals and Mansoura emergency hospital in the period between December 2024 and June 2025. Patients included in the study were admitted at emergency department of General Surgery at Mansoura University Hospital. The study was explained in details to the whole patients sharing in the study and a written informed consent was taken from all the patients. All patient presented with suspected acute appendicitis were subjected to four scores with comparing between them : Alvarado score, Appendicitis Inflammatory Response score (AIR), The RIPASA (Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis) score and AAS (Adult Appendicitis Score).
resultsROC curve analysis demonstrated variable diagnostic performance among the evaluated scoring systems for acute appendicitis. The Adult Appendicitis Score (AAS) showed the highest discriminatory ability with an AUC of 0.988 (p = 0.001), followed by the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score (AUC = 0.920, p = 0.005) and the RIPASA score (AUC = 0.825, p = 0.03). The Alvarado score demonstrated comparatively lower accuracy (AUC = 0.715, p = 0.155). At their respective optimal cutoff points, AAS and AIR achieved high sensitivity and overall accuracy, with AAS demonstrating an apparent specificity of 100%. These findings suggest superior diagnostic performance of AAS and AIR compared with Alvarado and RIPASA in the studied population.
conclusionAmong the evaluated clinical scoring systems, the Adult Appendicitis Score (AAS) and the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy for acute appendicitis, with AAS showing the best overall performance. These scoring systems may represent reliable tools for supporting clinical decision-making and improving diagnostic confidence, potentially reducing unnecessary imaging or negative appendectomies. However, further validation in larger, more diverse cohorts is required before firm recommendations can be made.
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.