Observational studyBMC emergency medicine2026
Comparison of the diagnostic values of MASS, RIPASA, AIR, and AAS scores in adult patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected appendicitis.
Observational study in BMC emergency medicine, 2026. 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.
- Comparison of the Alvarado Score with Alternative Diagnostic Tools in Pediatric Acute Appendicitis: A Literature Review.Pediatric reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAcute appendicitis (AA) is one of the most common causes of acute abdomen. Its diagnosis requires the combined evaluation of clinical, laboratory, and radiological findings. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the MASS (Modified Alvarado Score), RIPASA (Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis) Score, AIR (Appendicitis Inflammatory Response) Score, and AAS (Adult Appendicitis Score) in the diagnosis of AA. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis single-center, prospective, observational cohort study was conducted in the emergency department (ED) of a tertiary hospital. Patients aged 18 years and older with suspected AA who presented to the ED were included in the study. Patients’ demographic characteristics, clinical findings, laboratory, and imaging results were recorded. MASS, RIPASA, AIR, and AAS scores were calculated. Patients were divided into two groups based on their ED management: surgical and conservative. In the surgical group, intraoperative findings and/or histopathological results were taken as the gold standard for the final diagnosis. In the conservative group, the presence of appendicitis in patients with alternative or indefinite diagnoses was re-evaluated after a 4-week follow-up period. Patients were divided into two groups based on their final diagnosis: ‘AA’ and ‘non-AA’,
resultsA total of 238 patients were included, of whom 110 (46.2%) were diagnosed with AA. All four scoring systems demonstrated statistically significant discrimination between AA and non-AA groups. The AUC values were 0.736 for MASS, 0.719 for RIPASA, 0.786 for AIR, and 0.822 for AAS. At the optimal cut-off values determined by the Youden index, AAS showed the highest sensitivity (81.8%), while AIR demonstrated the highest specificity (77.3%). Pairwise DeLong comparisons indicated that AAS had significantly higher AUC values than MASS and RIPASA. The negative appendectomy rate in this cohort was 12.1%.
conclusionThese findings, while specific to this cohort, suggest that AAS may function as a supportive tool in AA risk stratification; however, external validation is needed in larger, multicenter populations.
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.