ArticleCureus2026
Accuracy of the Alvarado Score in Diagnosing Appendicitis Among Children Versus Adults.
Article in Cureus, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Alvarado score is widely used to risk-stratify suspected acute appendicitis; however, its diagnostic performance may vary across age groups.
aimTo compare the diagnostic discrimination of the Alvarado score between adults (≥18 years) and children (<18 years) using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, with the primary outcome being the difference in area under the curve (AUC) between groups. Secondary analyses evaluated diagnostic performance at predefined clinical thresholds (>7 and ≥5).
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 743 consecutive patients evaluated for suspected appendicitis. The index test was the Alvarado score derived from documented presentation findings. The reference standard was histopathological confirmation of appendicitis. Patients were categorized into children and adults. Discrimination was assessed using ROC analysis, and diagnostic performance was evaluated at predefined thresholds (high >7; equivocal ≥5), reporting sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). ROC curves were compared between adults and children using the DeLong test.
resultsThe Alvarado score demonstrated moderate diagnostic discrimination in both groups. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.685 in adults and 0.732 in children, with no statistically significant difference between groups (DeLong p = 0.305). At the high threshold (>7), overall sensitivity was 50.5%, with 48.5% in adults and 55.7% in children, while specificity was 80.4% in adults and 78.7% in children (80.0% overall). At the equivocal threshold (≥5), sensitivity increased to 84.3% in adults, 91.4% in children, and 86.3% overall, with specificity decreasing to 25.7% in adults, 24.6% in children, and 25.4% overall. Positive predictive values ranged from 69.7% to 85.7%, while negative predictive values ranged from 43.5% to 55.6%.
conclusionsThe Alvarado score demonstrated moderate diagnostic discrimination in both adults and children, with no statistically significant difference in ROC performance between groups. At the traditional high threshold (>7), sensitivity was limited, whereas lower thresholds (≥5) increased sensitivity with reduced specificity. These findings support the use of the Alvarado score as a clinical risk stratification tool in both age groups.
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.