ArticleJournal of the West African College of Surgeons
Evaluating the Accuracy of Appendicitis Inflammatory Response and Alvarado Scoring Systems in Predicting Acute Appendicitis.
Article in Journal of the West African College of Surgeons. 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.
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
Background: Diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA) is usually clinical, but the high negative appendectomy rates necessitated the development of several scoring systems. This study compares the accuracy of the conventional Alvarado with the newer appendicitis inflammatory response (AIR) scoring systems in the diagnosis of appendicitis. Materials and Methods: Patients with AA who had been selected for appendectomy by surgeons were evaluated pre-operatively using the Alvarado and AIR scoring systems with histopathological diagnosis as the benchmark. Both systems classified patients into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups. Results: Fifty-two patients with a mean age of 26.1 SD ± 10.1 years were evaluated. The negative appendectomy rate was 15.4%. Both systems had low sensitivity scores, with Alvarado performing slightly better, with a sensitivity of 45% vs. 30% (AIR). However, the two scoring systems showed remarkable specificity and a positive predictive value of 100% but performed poorly in the intermediate group, with all 24 patients classified as intermediate by AIR and 17 of the 18 classified by Alvarado as having histologically confirmed appendicitis. Notably, most patients in the indeterminate group had elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels. Conclusion: The two scoring systems show similar strengths in correctly predicting low- and high-risk patients. Patients classified as intermediate by both scoring systems with elevated CRP levels (>10 g/L) should be strongly considered positive. Modification of the clinical parameters of the AIR score may improve its diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility, hence reducing negative appendectomy rates.
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.