ArticleANZ journal of surgery
External Validation of Adult Prediction Models for Complicated Appendicitis After Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography: A Single-Centre Study.
Article in ANZ journal of surgery. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreoperative distinction between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis is important when treatment pathways diverge, including non-operative management for adults. Several adult prediction models exist, but validation remains limited.
methodsWe performed a single-centre validation study using a dataset from Nhan Dan Gia Dinh Hospital. Adults undergoing appendectomy after contrast-enhanced computed tomography were included. Complicated appendicitis was the primary outcome. Atema 2015, the Appendicitis Severity Index and Mori 2024 were prespecified for formal external validation. Because the pain score was unavailable, SAS 2.0 was not formally validated; instead, a modified SAS 2.0 using a surrogate abdominal examination variable was explored. Discrimination was assessed with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and threshold metrics at cut-offs.
resultsThe cohort comprised 496 adults; 200 (40.3%) had complicated appendicitis. Mori 2024 showed the highest discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.783, 95% confidence interval: 0.741-0.826), followed by Atema 2015 (0.760, 0.715-0.804) and the Appendicitis Severity Index (0.731, 0.686-0.776). Mori outperformed the Appendicitis Severity Index (p = 0.0146). At published cut-offs, sensitivity/specificity were 51.6%/89.7% for Atema, 22.0%/98.6% for the Appendicitis Severity Index and 75.0%/65.4% for Mori. In 474 complete cases, modified SAS 2.0 achieved an apparent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.850 and optimism-corrected area under the curve of 0.833.
conclusionIn this restricted-spectrum cohort, Mori performed best among the formal models, whereas the Appendicitis Severity Index was most specific but poorly sensitive. None of the formal models should be used alone to exclude complicated appendicitis in this setting.
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.