ArticleEmergency radiology2026
Diagnosis of acute appendicitis at a pediatric emergency department within a general hospital.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUltrasound (US) has evolved as the principal imaging modality in the evaluation of pediatric appendicitis due to inherent advantages but may vary in performance based on setting. Rapid focused Magnetic Resonance Imaging (rapid MRI) is a feasible alternative, but emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS) may be impacted. We wished to determine the performance and LOS of US and rapid MRI in a pediatric ED within a general hospital in the evaluation of appendicitis.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective diagnostic accuracy study of patients < 18 years of age with abdominal pain receiving imaging for evaluation of appendicitis (US or rapid MRI). We report descriptive statistics on demographics and clinical characteristics of the study population. We conducted a sensitivity analysis by the different imaging type and combinations performed.
resultsSensitivity and specificity for US and rapid MRI were 65.3% (95% CI: 57.5%–72.5%); 97.0% (95% CI: 94.5%–98.5%) and 98.3% (95% CI: 90.6%–100.0%); 96.1%, (95% CI: 91.1%–98.7%), respectively. US alone was associated with the shortest median ED LOS (5.3 hours, IQR 3.9–7.8), followed by rapid MRI alone (7.9 hours, IQR 5.4–8.6). US with subsequent rapid MRI was associated with the longest ED LOS (10.6 hours, IQR 7.6–13.3).
conclusionUS was nondiagnostic for a substantial number of studies performed resulting in suboptimal sensitivity for the diagnosis of appendicitis. Rapid MRI had better sensitivity but a greater LOS. Future work should focus on determining potential barriers that exist and incorporating strategies to enhance US performance and/or decrease rapid MRI LOS.
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.