Malsha Kularatna1, Melanie Lauti2, Cheyaanthan Haran2, Wiremu MacFater2, Laila Sheikh3, Ying Huang4, John McCall5, Andrew D MacCormick6,7. 1. Department of Surgery, Middlemore Hospital, Counties Manukau Health, Auckland, New Zealand. malsh87@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, South Auckland Clinical Campus, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 3. Department of Surgery, Middlemore Hospital, Counties Manukau Health, Auckland, New Zealand. 4. Section of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 5. Department of Surgery, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. 6. Department of Surgery, Middlemore Hospital, Counties Manukau Health, Auckland, New Zealand. andrew.maccormick@middlemore.co.nz. 7. Department of Surgery, South Auckland Clinical Campus, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. andrew.maccormick@middlemore.co.nz.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) provide an objective method of assessment in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. There are a number of available CPRs for the diagnosis of appendicitis, but it is unknown which performs best. AIM: The aim of this study was to identify what CPRs are available and how they perform when diagnosing appendicitis in adults. METHOD: A systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Studies that derived or validated a CPR were included. Their performance was assessed on sensitivity, specificity and area under curve (AUC) values. RESULTS: Thirty-four articles were included in this review. Of these 12 derived a CPR and 22 validated these CPRs. A narrative analysis was performed as meta-analysis was precluded due to study heterogeneity and quality of included studies. The results from validation studies showed that the overall best performer in terms of sensitivity (92%), specificity (63%) and AUC values (0.84-0.97) was the AIR score but only a limited number of studies investigated at this score. Although the Alvarado and Modified Alvarado scores were the most commonly validated, results from these studies were variable. The Alvarado score outperformed the modified Alvarado score in terms of sensitivity, specificity and AUC values. CONCLUSION: There are 12 CPRs available for diagnosis of appendicitis in adults. The AIR score appeared to be the best performer and most pragmatic CPR.
BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) provide an objective method of assessment in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. There are a number of available CPRs for the diagnosis of appendicitis, but it is unknown which performs best. AIM: The aim of this study was to identify what CPRs are available and how they perform when diagnosing appendicitis in adults. METHOD: A systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Studies that derived or validated a CPR were included. Their performance was assessed on sensitivity, specificity and area under curve (AUC) values. RESULTS: Thirty-four articles were included in this review. Of these 12 derived a CPR and 22 validated these CPRs. A narrative analysis was performed as meta-analysis was precluded due to study heterogeneity and quality of included studies. The results from validation studies showed that the overall best performer in terms of sensitivity (92%), specificity (63%) and AUC values (0.84-0.97) was the AIR score but only a limited number of studies investigated at this score. Although the Alvarado and Modified Alvarado scores were the most commonly validated, results from these studies were variable. The Alvarado score outperformed the modified Alvarado score in terms of sensitivity, specificity and AUC values. CONCLUSION: There are 12 CPRs available for diagnosis of appendicitis in adults. The AIR score appeared to be the best performer and most pragmatic CPR.
Authors: Y Pouget-Baudry; S Mucci; E Eyssartier; A Guesdon-Portes; P Lada; C Casa; J-P Arnaud; A Hamy Journal: J Visc Surg Date: 2010-06-11 Impact factor: 2.043
Authors: K Kim; J E Rhee; C C Lee; K S Kim; J H Shin; M J Kwak; J H Kim; G J Suh; S K Hahn; A J Singer Journal: Emerg Med J Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 2.740
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: Ąžuolas Algimantas Kaminskas; Raminta Lukšaitė-Lukštė; Eugenijus Jasiūnas; Artūras Samuilis; Vytautas Augustinavičius; Marius Kryžauskas; Kęstutis Strupas; Tomas Poškus Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2021-12-20 Impact factor: 2.430