Literature DB >> 11073473

False-negative and false-positive errors in abdominal pain evaluation: failure to diagnose acute appendicitis and unnecessary surgery.

L Graff1, J Russell, J Seashore, J Tate, A Elwell, M Prete, M Werdmann, R Maag, C Krivenko, M Radford.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that physician errors (failure to diagnose appendicitis at initial evaluation) correlate with adverse outcome. The authors also postulated that physician errors would correlate with delays in surgery, delays in surgery would correlate with adverse outcomes, and physician errors would occur on patients with atypical presentations.
METHODS: This was a retrospective two-arm observational cohort study at 12 acute care hospitals: 1) consecutive patients who had an appendectomy for appendicitis and 2) consecutive emergency department abdominal pain patients. Outcome measures were adverse events (perforation, abscess) and physician diagnostic performance (false-positive decisions, false-negative decisions).
RESULTS: The appendectomy arm of the study included 1, 026 patients with 110 (10.5%) false-positive decisions (range by hospital 4.7% to 19.5%). Of the 916 patients with appendicitis, 170 (18.6%) false-negative decisions were made (range by hospital 10.6% to 27.8%). Patients who had false-negative decisions had increased risks of perforation (r = 0.59, p = 0.058) and of abscess formation (r = 0.81, p = 0.002). For admitted patients, when the inhospital delay before surgery was >20 hours, the risk of perforation was increased [2.9 odds ratio (OR) 95% CI = 1.8 to 4.8]. The amount of delay from initial physician evaluation until surgery varied with physician diagnostic performance: 7.0 hours (95% CI = 6.7 to 7.4) if the initial physician made the diagnosis, 72.4 hours (95% CI = 51.2 to 93.7) if the initial office physician missed the diagnosis, and 63.1 hours (95% CI = 47.9 to 78.4) if the initial emergency physician missed the diagnosis. Patients whose diagnosis was initially missed by the physician had fewer signs and symptoms of appendicitis than patients whose diagnosis was made initially [appendicitis score 2.0 (95% CI = 1.6 to 2.3) vs 6.5 (95% CI = 6.4 to 6.7)]. Older patients (>41 years old) had more false-negative decisions and a higher risk of perforation or abscess (3.5 OR 95% CI = 2.4 to 5.1). False-positive decisions were made for patients who had signs and symptoms similar to those of appendicitis patients [appendicitis score 5.7 (95% CI = 5.2 to 6.1) vs 6.5 (95% CI = 6.4 to 6.7)]. Female patients had an increased risk of false-positive surgery (2.3 OR 95% CI = 1.5 to 3.4). The abdominal pain arm of the study included 1,118 consecutive patients submitted by eight hospitals, with 44 patients having appendicitis. Hospitals with observation units compared with hospitals without observation units had a higher "rule out appendicitis" evaluation rate [33.7% (95% CI = 27 to 38) vs 24.7% (95% CI = 23 to 27)] and a similar hospital admission rate (27.6% vs 24.7%, p = NS). There was a lower miss-diagnosis rate (15.1% vs 19.4%, p = NS power 0.02), lower perforation rate (19.0% vs 20.6%, p = NS power 0.05), and lower abscess rate (5.6% vs 6.9%, p = NS power 0.06), but these did not reach statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS: Errors in physician diagnostic decisions correlated with patient clinical findings, i.e., the missed diagnoses were on appendicitis patients with few clinical findings and unnecessary surgeries were on non-appendicitis patients with clinical findings similar to those of patients with appendicitis. Adverse events (perforation, abscess formation) correlated with physician false-negative decisions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11073473     DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2000.tb00470.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Emerg Med        ISSN: 1069-6563            Impact factor:   3.451


  22 in total

1.  Sex differences in the epidemiology, seasonal variation, and trends in the management of patients with acute appendicitis.

Authors:  Gideon Y Stein; Lea Rath-Wolfson; Aliza Zeidman; Eli Atar; Ohad Marcus; Samia Joubran; Edward Ram
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2012-06-02       Impact factor: 3.445

2.  Clinical judgment remains of great value in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

Authors:  Eric Bergeron
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.089

3.  Re: Male gender is a risk factor for recurrent appendicitis following nonoperative treatment.

Authors:  Salomone Di Saverio; Federico Coccolini; Michele Pisano; Fausto Catena; Elio Jovine; Gregorio Tugnoli; Luca Ansaloni
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Is appendicitis an emergency?

Authors:  Roland E Andersson
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 5.  Pediatric observation units in the United States: a systematic review.

Authors:  Michelle L Macy; Christopher S Kim; Comilla Sasson; Marie M Lozon; Matthew M Davis
Journal:  J Hosp Med       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.960

6.  Value of polyclonal human immunoglobulin tagged with ⁹⁹mTc for detecting acute appendicitis in patients with intermediate probability of appendicitis.

Authors:  Mehdi Asadi; Mostafa Mehrabi Bahar; Ramin Sadeghi; Ali Jangjo; Vahidreza Dabbagh Kakhki; Seyed Rasoul Zakavi
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 3.352

7.  Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis in high risk patients.

Authors:  G Werkgartner; H Cerwenka; A El Shabrawi; H Bacher; H Hauser; H J Mischinger; M Wagner; D Wagner
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2014-12-16       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  Application value of laboratory indexes in the differential diagnosis of Henoch-Schoenlein purpura.

Authors:  W-X Shao; Q Ye; X-J Wang
Journal:  Z Rheumatol       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.372

9.  [Acute abdomen : What the clinician wants to know from the radiologist].

Authors:  D Tamandl; T Uray
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 0.635

10.  Diagnosis of Appendicitis in Patients with a Normal White Blood Cell Count; A Cross-Sectional Study.

Authors:  Sadettin Er; Bülent Çomçalı; Ahmet Soykurt; Bülent Cavit Yüksel; Mesut Tez
Journal:  Bull Emerg Trauma       Date:  2018-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.