Evaluation of the Alvarado Score in Acute Appendicitis

Owen, T D; Williams, H.; Stiff, G. J.; Jenkinson, Lloyd R.; Rees, B I

doi:10.1177/014107689208500211

Cited by 119 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Scoring systems have been designed to aid in the clinical assessment of patients with acute appendicitis. The Alvarado score is the most well known and best performing in validation studies, but it has some drawbacks [7][8][9]. Its construction was based on a review of patients who had been operated with suspicion of appendicitis, whereas the score is supposed to be used on all patients with suspicion of appendicitis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score for Patients with Acute Appendicitis

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAcute appendicitis is still a difficult diagnosis. Scoring systems are designed to aid in the clinical assessment of patients with acute appendicitis. The Alvarado score is the most well known and best performing in validation studies. The purpose of the present study was to externally validate a recently developed appendicitis inflammatory response (AIR) score and compare it to the Alvarado score.MethodsThe present study selected consecutive patients who presented with suspicion of acute appendicitis between 2006 and 2009. Variables necessary to evaluate the scoring systems were registered. The diagnostic performance of the two scores was compared.ResultsThe present study included 941 consecutive patients with suspicion of acute appendicitis. There were 410 male patients (44%) and 531 female patients (56%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the AIR score was 0.96 and significantly better than the area under the curve of 0.82 of the Alvarado score (p < 0.05). The AIR score also outperformed the Alvarado score when analyzing the more difficult patients, including women, children, and the elderly.ConclusionsThis study externally validates the AIR Score for patients with acute appendicitis. The scoring system has a high discriminating power and outperforms the Alvarado score.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score for Patients with Acute Appendicitis

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…AS has been shown to be highly valid when applied to populations in the United States and Europe. [14] In the study conducted by Tatli et al, [15] it was reported that the AS is an easy-to-use and noninvasive ancillary diagnostic tool with high diagnostic accuracy in patients with suspected AA. Parallel to this, in the study by Augustin et al patients with a score > 7 were associated with 82.9% sensitivity and 86.4% specivity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does one of the two most commonly used scoring systems have a decisive advantage over the other in diagnosing acute appendicitis in pregnant women?

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to compare the accuracy and reliability of Alvarado Score (AS) and Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score (AIRS) in pregnant women undergoing surgery for acute appendicitis (AA). The files of 53 pregnant women with a diagnosis of AA who underwent surgery in our clinic between February 2014 and December 2018 were examined retrospectively. The patients were divided into 3 groups as follows: first trimester between 0 and 14 weeks, second trimester between 15 and 28 weeks, and third trimester between 29 and 42 weeks. The AS and AIRS values were calculated according to preoperative physical examination and laboratory results. The mean age of the patients was 28.58 (18–44) years. According to the pathology results, appendicitis was detected in 16 of 23 patients in the first trimester, in 22 of 25 patients in the second trimester, and in 2 of 5 patients in the third trimester. The AIRS was ≥ 9 in 9 patients and the AS was ≥ 7 in 19 of the 23 patients in the 1st trimester, while the AIRS was ≥ 9 in 11 patients and the AS was ≥ 7 in 19 of the 25 patients in the 2nd trimester. However, in the 3rd trimester, the AIRS was ≥ 9 in 2 patients and AS was ≥ 7 in 4 of the 5 patients. In conclusion, when the data obtained from the present study were evaluated, it was determined that both AS and AIRS are effective methods for diagnosing AA in pregnant women.

show abstract

“…The most commonly validated CPR was the Alvarado score, followed by the Kalan's modified Alvarado score (Figs. 2, 3) [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]. The average AUC value for the Alvarado score that ranged between 0.74 and 0.88 was higher than the modified Alvarado score which had an AUC of 0.69 from a single study (Table 5).…”

Section: Validation Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%