Vanja Giljaca1, Tin Nadarevic2, Goran Poropat3, Vesna Stefanac Nadarevic4, Davor Stimac3. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Centre Rijeka, Kresimirova 42, 51000, Rijeka, Croatia. vanja.giljaca@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, University Hospital Centre Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Centre Rijeka, Kresimirova 42, 51000, Rijeka, Croatia. 4. Department of Family Medicine, University of Rijeka School of Medicine, Rijeka, Croatia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of abdominal ultrasound (US) for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA), in terms of sensitivity, specificity and post-test probabilities for positive and negative result. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane library and Science Citation Index Expanded from January 1994 to October 2014 was performed. Two authors independently evaluated studies for inclusion, extracted data and performed analyses. The reference standard for evaluation of final diagnosis was pathohistological report on tissue obtained at appendectomy. Summary sensitivity, specificity and post-test probability of AA after positive and negative result of US with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Out of 3306 references identified through electronic searches, 17 reports met the inclusion criteria, with 2841 included participants. The summary sensitivity and specificity of US for diagnosis of AA were 69% (95% CI 59-78%) and 81% (95% CI 73-88%), respectively. At the median pretest probability of AA of 76.4%, the post-test probability for a positive and negative result of US was 92% (95% CI 88-95%) and 55% (95% CI 46-63%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal ultrasound does not seem to have a role in the diagnostic pathway for diagnosis of AA in suspected patients. The summary sensitivity and specificity of US do not exceed that of physical examination. Patients that require additional diagnostic workup should be referred to more sensitive and specific diagnostic procedures, such as computed tomography.
BACKGROUND: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of abdominal ultrasound (US) for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA), in terms of sensitivity, specificity and post-test probabilities for positive and negative result. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane library and Science Citation Index Expanded from January 1994 to October 2014 was performed. Two authors independently evaluated studies for inclusion, extracted data and performed analyses. The reference standard for evaluation of final diagnosis was pathohistological report on tissue obtained at appendectomy. Summary sensitivity, specificity and post-test probability of AA after positive and negative result of US with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Out of 3306 references identified through electronic searches, 17 reports met the inclusion criteria, with 2841 included participants. The summary sensitivity and specificity of US for diagnosis of AA were 69% (95% CI 59-78%) and 81% (95% CI 73-88%), respectively. At the median pretest probability of AA of 76.4%, the post-test probability for a positive and negative result of US was 92% (95% CI 88-95%) and 55% (95% CI 46-63%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal ultrasound does not seem to have a role in the diagnostic pathway for diagnosis of AA in suspected patients. The summary sensitivity and specificity of US do not exceed that of physical examination. Patients that require additional diagnostic workup should be referred to more sensitive and specific diagnostic procedures, such as computed tomography.
Authors: John M Howell; Orin L Eddy; Thomas W Lukens; Molly E W Thiessen; Scott D Weingart; Wyatt W Decker Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Ulrich Guller; Sheleika Hervey; Harriett Purves; Lawrence H Muhlbaier; Eric D Peterson; Steve Eubanks; Ricardo Pietrobon Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Ramez Antakia; Athanasios Xanthis; Fanourios Georgiades; Victoria Hudson; James Ashcroft; Siobhan Rooney; Aminder A Singh; John R O'Neill; Nicola Fearnhead; Richard H Hardwick; R Justin Davies; John M H Bennett Journal: Int J Surg Date: 2021-01-16 Impact factor: 6.071
Authors: W J Bom; M D Bolmers; S L Gans; C C van Rossem; A A W van Geloven; P M M Bossuyt; J Stoker; M A Boermeester Journal: BJS Open Date: 2021-03-05
Authors: Jérémie F Cohen; Jonathan J Deeks; Lotty Hooft; Jean-Paul Salameh; Daniël A Korevaar; Constantine Gatsonis; Sally Hopewell; Harriet A Hunt; Chris J Hyde; Mariska M Leeflang; Petra Macaskill; Trevor A McGrath; David Moher; Johannes B Reitsma; Anne W S Rutjes; Yemisi Takwoingi; Marcello Tonelli; Penny Whiting; Brian H Willis; Brett Thombs; Patrick M Bossuyt; Matthew D F McInnes Journal: BMJ Date: 2021-03-15