Manne Andersson1, Roland E Andersson. 1. Department of Surgery, County Hospital Ryhov, 551 85 Jönköping, Sweden. manne.andersson@lj.se
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical diagnosis of appendicitis is a subjective synthesis of information from variables with ill-defined diagnostic value. This process could be improved by using a scoring system that includes objective variables that reflect the inflammatory response. This study describes the construction and evaluation of a new clinical appendicitis score. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively from 545 patients admitted for suspected appendicitis at four hospitals. The score was constructed from eight variables with independent diagnostic value (right-lower-quadrant pain, rebound tenderness, muscular defense, WBC count, proportion neutrophils, CRP, body temperature, and vomiting) in 316 randomly selected patients and evaluated on the remaining 229 patients. Ordered logistic regression was used to obtain a high discriminating power with focus on advanced appendicitis. Diagnostic performance was compared with the Alvarado score. RESULTS: The ROC area of the new score was 0.97 for advanced appendicitis and 0.93 for all appendicitis compared with 0.92 (p = 0.0027) and 0.88 (p = 0.0007), respectively, for the Alvarado score. Sixty-three percent of the patients were classified into the low- or high-probability group with an accuracy of 97.2%, leaving 37% for further investigation. Seventy-three percent of the nonappendicitis patients, 67% of the advanced appendicitis, and 37% of all appendicitis patients were correctly classified into the low- and high-probability zone, respectively. CONCLUSION: This simple clinical score can correctly classify the majority of patients with suspected appendicitis, leaving the need for diagnostic imaging or diagnostic laparoscopy to the smaller group of patients with an indeterminate scoring result.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The clinical diagnosis of appendicitis is a subjective synthesis of information from variables with ill-defined diagnostic value. This process could be improved by using a scoring system that includes objective variables that reflect the inflammatory response. This study describes the construction and evaluation of a new clinical appendicitis score. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively from 545 patients admitted for suspected appendicitis at four hospitals. The score was constructed from eight variables with independent diagnostic value (right-lower-quadrant pain, rebound tenderness, muscular defense, WBC count, proportion neutrophils, CRP, body temperature, and vomiting) in 316 randomly selected patients and evaluated on the remaining 229 patients. Ordered logistic regression was used to obtain a high discriminating power with focus on advanced appendicitis. Diagnostic performance was compared with the Alvarado score. RESULTS: The ROC area of the new score was 0.97 for advanced appendicitis and 0.93 for all appendicitis compared with 0.92 (p = 0.0027) and 0.88 (p = 0.0007), respectively, for the Alvarado score. Sixty-three percent of the patients were classified into the low- or high-probability group with an accuracy of 97.2%, leaving 37% for further investigation. Seventy-three percent of the nonappendicitis patients, 67% of the advanced appendicitis, and 37% of all appendicitispatients were correctly classified into the low- and high-probability zone, respectively. CONCLUSION: This simple clinical score can correctly classify the majority of patients with suspected appendicitis, leaving the need for diagnostic imaging or diagnostic laparoscopy to the smaller group of patients with an indeterminate scoring result.
Authors: Mehmet Tahsin Tekeli; Enver Ilhan; Orhan Ureyen; Abdullah Senlikci; Eyup Yeldan; Mucteba Ozturk; Mehmet Akif Ustuner; Ugur Gokcelli; Emrah Dadali; Fevzi Cengiz; Savas Yakan Journal: Indian J Surg Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 0.656
Authors: Salomone Di Saverio; Mauro Podda; Belinda De Simone; Marco Ceresoli; Goran Augustin; Alice Gori; Marja Boermeester; Massimo Sartelli; Federico Coccolini; Antonio Tarasconi; Nicola De' Angelis; Dieter G Weber; Matti Tolonen; Arianna Birindelli; Walter Biffl; Ernest E Moore; Michael Kelly; Kjetil Soreide; Jeffry Kashuk; Richard Ten Broek; Carlos Augusto Gomes; Michael Sugrue; Richard Justin Davies; Dimitrios Damaskos; Ari Leppäniemi; Andrew Kirkpatrick; Andrew B Peitzman; Gustavo P Fraga; Ronald V Maier; Raul Coimbra; Massimo Chiarugi; Gabriele Sganga; Adolfo Pisanu; Gian Luigi De' Angelis; Edward Tan; Harry Van Goor; Francesco Pata; Isidoro Di Carlo; Osvaldo Chiara; Andrey Litvin; Fabio C Campanile; Boris Sakakushev; Gia Tomadze; Zaza Demetrashvili; Rifat Latifi; Fakri Abu-Zidan; Oreste Romeo; Helmut Segovia-Lohse; Gianluca Baiocchi; David Costa; Sandro Rizoli; Zsolt J Balogh; Cino Bendinelli; Thomas Scalea; Rao Ivatury; George Velmahos; Roland Andersson; Yoram Kluger; Luca Ansaloni; Fausto Catena Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: Manne Andersson; Marie Rubér; Christina Ekerfelt; Hanna Björnsson Hallgren; Gunnar Olaison; Roland E Andersson Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 3.352