W J Bom1,2, M D Bolmers1, S L Gans1, C C van Rossem2, A A W van Geloven3, P M M Bossuyt4, J Stoker5, M A Boermeester1. 1. Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Location Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Surgery, Tergooi Hospital Hilversum, Hilversum, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Surgery, Maasstad Ziekenhuis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Public Health, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Location Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis is crucial. Patients with suspected complicated appendicitis are best treated by emergency surgery, whereas those with uncomplicated appendicitis may be treated with antibiotics alone. This study aimed to obtain summary estimates of the accuracy of ultrasound imaging, CT and MRI in discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted by an electronic search in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for studies describing the diagnostic accuracy of complicated versus uncomplicated appendicitis. Studies were included if the population comprised adults, and surgery or pathology was used as a reference standard. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed with QUADAS-2. Bivariable logitnormal random-effect models were used to estimate mean sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Two studies reporting on ultrasound imaging, 11 studies on CT, one on MRI, and one on ultrasonography with conditional CT were included. Summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity in detecting complicated appendicitis could be calculated only for CT, because of lack of data for the other imaging modalities. For CT, mean sensitivity was 78 (95 per cent c.i. 64 to 88) per cent, and mean specificity was 91 (85 to 99) per cent. At a median prevalence of 25 per cent, the positive predictive value of CT for complicated appendicitis would be 74 per cent and its negative predictive value 93 per cent. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound imaging, CT and MRI have limitations in discriminating between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis. Although CT has far from perfect sensitivity, its negative predictive value for complicated appendicitis is high.
BACKGROUND: Discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis is crucial. Patients with suspected complicated appendicitis are best treated by emergency surgery, whereas those with uncomplicated appendicitis may be treated with antibiotics alone. This study aimed to obtain summary estimates of the accuracy of ultrasound imaging, CT and MRI in discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted by an electronic search in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for studies describing the diagnostic accuracy of complicated versus uncomplicated appendicitis. Studies were included if the population comprised adults, and surgery or pathology was used as a reference standard. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed with QUADAS-2. Bivariable logitnormal random-effect models were used to estimate mean sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Two studies reporting on ultrasound imaging, 11 studies on CT, one on MRI, and one on ultrasonography with conditional CT were included. Summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity in detecting complicated appendicitis could be calculated only for CT, because of lack of data for the other imaging modalities. For CT, mean sensitivity was 78 (95 per cent c.i. 64 to 88) per cent, and mean specificity was 91 (85 to 99) per cent. At a median prevalence of 25 per cent, the positive predictive value of CT for complicated appendicitis would be 74 per cent and its negative predictive value 93 per cent. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound imaging, CT and MRI have limitations in discriminating between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis. Although CT has far from perfect sensitivity, its negative predictive value for complicated appendicitis is high.
Authors: Hae Young Kim; Ji Hoon Park; Yoon Jin Lee; Sung Soo Lee; Jong-June Jeon; Kyoung Ho Lee Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mirelle E E Bröker; Esther M M van Lieshout; Maarten van der Elst; Laurents P S Stassen; Tim Schepers Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2011-10-14 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Hae Young Kim; Ji Hoon Park; Sung Soo Lee; Woo Joo Lee; Yousun Ko; Roland E Andersson; Kyoung Ho Lee Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Yingding Xu; R Brooke Jeffrey; Stephanie T Chang; Michael A DiMaio; Eric W Olcott Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2016-12-31 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: M M N Leeuwenburgh; M J Wiezer; B M Wiarda; W H Bouma; S S K S Phoa; H B A C Stockmann; S Jensch; P M M Bossuyt; M A Boermeester; J Stoker Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2013-11-22 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Ayman El Nakeeb; Sameh Hany Emile; Ahmed AbdelMawla; Mohamed Attia; Mohamed Alzahrani; Ayman ElGamdi; Abd Elwahab Nouh; Abdulaziz Alshahrani; Riyadh AlAreef; Taha Kayed; Hosam Mohamad Hamza; Ahmad AlMalki; Fares Rayzah; Motaz Alsharif; Fares Alsharif; Mohammed M Mohammed Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2022-02-13 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Wouter J Bom; Jochem C G Scheijmans; Sander Ubels; Anna A W van Geloven; Sarah L Gans; Kristien M A J Tytgat; Charles C van Rossem; Lianne Koens; Jaap Stoker; Willem A Bemelman; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Marja A Boermeester Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 2.692