ArticleBMC surgery2026
Diagnostic performance of RIPASA versus modified Alvarado score in acute appendicitis: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study from a tertiary centre in India.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAcute appendicitis is a common surgical emergency. Clinical scores assist risk stratification where routine advanced imaging is impractical. The Alvarado score's performance in Asian populations is debated. The Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) score was developed for Asian settings. This study prospectively compared RIPASA and the Modified Alvarado Score (MAS) against histopathological examination (HPE) in an Indian tertiary centre.
methodsProspective diagnostic accuracy study of 62 patients undergoing appendicectomy for suspected acute appendicitis at S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur (January-December 2024). Pre-operative demographics, symptoms, signs and laboratory parameters were recorded; RIPASA (cut-off ≥ 7.5) and MAS (cut-off ≥ 7) were calculated. HPE was the reference standard. Outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with standard error (SE) and 95% confidence interval (CI). AUCs were compared using DeLong's test, and paired sensitivities and specificities using McNemar's test.
resultsParticipants were predominantly males (71.0%); mean age 30.66 years. HPE confirmed appendicitis in 56/62 (90.3%); negative appendicectomy rate 9.7%. RIPASA ≥ 7.5: sensitivity 94.6%, specificity 66.7%, PPV 96.4%, NPV 57.1%, AUC 0.921 (SE 0.052; 95% CI 0.820-1.000; p = 0.001). MAS ≥ 7: sensitivity 71.4%, specificity 83.3%, PPV 97.6%, NPV 23.8%, AUC 0.821 (SE 0.083; 95% CI 0.659-0.984; p = 0.010). DeLong's test showed superior discrimination for RIPASA (p = 0.030). McNemar's test demonstrated higher sensitivity for RIPASA (p = 0.0009), with no significant difference in specificity (p = 1.000).
conclusionRIPASA demonstrated higher sensitivity and better diagnostic discrimination than MAS in this tertiary surgical cohort, while MAS showed higher specificity. RIPASA may help reduce missed diagnoses in similar high-prevalence emergency settings, although further validation in broader patient populations is warranted.
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.