ArticleNorthern clinics of Istanbul2026
Comparison of physical examination, laboratory and radiologic findings in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.
Article in Northern clinics of Istanbul, 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
objectiveThe aim of the present study was to compare the diagnostic performance of physical examination, routinely used laboratory markers, and radiological imaging modalities in adult patients with suspected acute appendicitis (AA), and to evaluate the relative contribution of each diagnostic tool under real-world clinical conditions.
methodsThis prospective observational study included 665 consecutive adult patients who underwent appendectomy for AA. Preoperative laboratory parameters, including white blood cell count, C-reactive protein, neutrophil count, neutrophil percentage, total bilirubin, and indirect bilirubin, were recorded. Radiological findings from computed tomography and ultrasonography were documented. Physical examinations were independently performed without access to laboratory or imaging results by both a general surgery resident and a specialist general surgeon. Physical examination findings were categorized as compatible, suspicious, or incompatible with AA. Histopathological examination of all specimens served as the reference standard.
resultsOf the 665 patients, 242 (36.4%) were women, and 423 (63.6%) were men, with a mean age of 34.9±14.2 years. The negative appendectomy rate was 5.8%. Resident physical examination demonstrated the highest sensitivity (95.2%) and overall diagnostic accuracy (88.9%). Among laboratory markers, neutrophil count showed high sensitivity (87.9%), while total and indirect bilirubin demonstrated the highest specificity (89.7% and 94.7%, respectively). Computed tomography achieved a sensitivity of 85.7%, whereas ultrasonography showed lower diagnostic performance, particularly in specificity.
conclusionPhysical examination remains a highly effective diagnostic tool for AA when performed systematically and should be integrated with laboratory and selective imaging rather than replaced by them.
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.