C-W Yu1, L-I Juan, M-H Wu, C-J Shen, J-Y Wu, C-C Lee. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Keelung, and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim was to evaluate the diagnostic value of procalcitonin, C-reactive protein (CRP) and white blood cell count (WBC) in uncomplicated or complicated appendicitis by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: The Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched, along with reference lists of relevant articles, without language restriction, to September 2012. Original studies were selected that reported the performance of procalcitonin alone or in combination with CRP or WBC in diagnosing appendicitis. Test performance characteristics were summarized using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and bivariable random-effects models. RESULTS: Seven qualifying studies (1011 suspected cases, 636 confirmed) from seven countries were identified. Bivariable pooled sensitivity and specificity were 33 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 21 to 47) and 89 (78 to 95) per cent respectively for procalcitonin, 57 (39 to 73) and 87 (58 to 97) per cent for CRP, and 62 (47 to 74) and 75 (55 to 89) per cent for WBC. ROC curve analysis showed that CRP had the highest accuracy (area under ROC curve 0·75, 95 per cent c.i. 0·71 to 0·78), followed by WBC (0·72, 0·68 to 0·76) and procalcitonin (0·65, 0·61 to 0·69). Procalcitonin was found to be more accurate in diagnosing complicated appendicitis, with a pooled sensitivity of 62 (33 to 84) per cent and specificity of 94 (90 to 96) per cent. CONCLUSION: Procalcitonin has little value in diagnosing acute appendicitis, with lower diagnostic accuracy than CRP and WBC. However, procalcitonin has greater diagnostic value in identifying complicated appendicitis. Given the imperfect accuracy of these three variables, new markers for improving medical decision-making in patients with suspected appendicitis are highly desirable.
BACKGROUND: The aim was to evaluate the diagnostic value of procalcitonin, C-reactive protein (CRP) and white blood cell count (WBC) in uncomplicated or complicated appendicitis by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: The Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched, along with reference lists of relevant articles, without language restriction, to September 2012. Original studies were selected that reported the performance of procalcitonin alone or in combination with CRP or WBC in diagnosing appendicitis. Test performance characteristics were summarized using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and bivariable random-effects models. RESULTS: Seven qualifying studies (1011 suspected cases, 636 confirmed) from seven countries were identified. Bivariable pooled sensitivity and specificity were 33 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 21 to 47) and 89 (78 to 95) per cent respectively for procalcitonin, 57 (39 to 73) and 87 (58 to 97) per cent for CRP, and 62 (47 to 74) and 75 (55 to 89) per cent for WBC. ROC curve analysis showed that CRP had the highest accuracy (area under ROC curve 0·75, 95 per cent c.i. 0·71 to 0·78), followed by WBC (0·72, 0·68 to 0·76) and procalcitonin (0·65, 0·61 to 0·69). Procalcitonin was found to be more accurate in diagnosing complicated appendicitis, with a pooled sensitivity of 62 (33 to 84) per cent and specificity of 94 (90 to 96) per cent. CONCLUSION: Procalcitonin has little value in diagnosing acute appendicitis, with lower diagnostic accuracy than CRP and WBC. However, procalcitonin has greater diagnostic value in identifying complicated appendicitis. Given the imperfect accuracy of these three variables, new markers for improving medical decision-making in patients with suspected appendicitis are highly desirable.
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: Maxim Avanesov; Nis Jesper Wiese; Murat Karul; Helena Guerreiro; Sarah Keller; Philip Busch; Frank Jacobsen; Gerhard Adam; Jin Yamamura Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-03-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ruud G Nijman; Yvonne Vergouwe; Henriëtte A Moll; Frank J Smit; Floor Weerkamp; Ewout W Steyerberg; Johan van der Lei; Yolanda B de Rijke; Rianne Oostenbrink Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2017-11-08 Impact factor: 3.756
Authors: Fatih Mehmet Yazar; Aykut Urfalioglu; Murat Bakacak; Ömer Faruk Boran; Ertan Bülbüloğlu Journal: Indian J Surg Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 0.656