Background Challenges in the diagnosis of obstructive jaundice include locating the level of obstruction, knowing the cause of obstruction, and differentiating between benign and malignant causes. Imaging plays a significant role in detecting the causes of obstruction. Radiologists aim to diagnose biliary obstruction, its level, extent, and probable causes to determine the appropriate treatment for each case. Methods Our study is a retrospective medical record review study. It included 150 patients who had ultrasound (US) diagnosis of biliary obstruction and underwent magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Buraidah. The patients' medical records have been reviewed to measure the sensitivity and specificity of US, MRCP, and ERCP. Results Statistical analysis of the data showed that the sensitivity of US in detecting the most common cause of biliary obstruction, common bile duct (CBD) stone, was 26.6%, while the specificity was 100%. Comparing this sensitivity of US in detecting CBD stones to that of MRCP and ERCP, we obtained the following: US, 26.6%; MRCP, 62.9%; and ERCP, 62.4%. Although US was the least sensitive for detecting CBD stones, its specificity in this detection was 100%, while MRCP was 63.6%, and ERCP was 55.2%. Conclusion US is the best initial step for the diagnosis of biliary obstruction. However, MRCP and ERCP are more sensitive in detecting CBD stones compared to US. Also, compared to US, they have shown higher percentages in all aspects of detection: level, cause, and extent of biliary obstruction.

Objectives: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US) in predicting acute appendicitis in relation to histopathology reports at King Fahad Specialist Hospital in Buraidah, Saudi Arabia. Methods: A retrospective cohort study included 500 medical records of patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis upon admission to King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Buraidah, Saudi Arabia, between January 2015 and January 2017. Results: Of the 200 patients, 187 (93.5%) were diagnosed with acute appendicitis by histopathology. Of these 187 patients, 57 (30.5%) underwent CT and 54 (29%) underwent US. Computed tomography correctly identified 86.0% of the patients as having acute appendicitis and incorrectly identified 14% as not having acute appendicitis. Similarly, US correctly identified 37% of the patients as having acute appendicitis, while the remaining 63% were incorrectly identified as not having acute appendicitis. Thirteen patients (6.5%) did not have acute appendicitis (confirmed by histology report). Six (46.15%) of these 13 patients underwent CT. Five of these 6 (83.3%) were incorrectly diagnosed with acute appendicitis by CT, whereas one of the 6 (16.7%) was identified as a true negative. On the other hand, US correctly identified 100% of the 13 patients as true negative. Conclusion: Computed tomography was shown to have sensitivity 86% and a specificity of 16.7% for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. On the other hand, US had a sensitivity of 37% and a specificity of 100%. Therefore, we conclude that if imaging needed to confirm the diagnosis of appendicitis, CT is the choice. Ultrasound can be used only to exclude gynecological disorders.