2017
DOI: 10.18203/2349-2902.isj20173413
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

KIMS modification of Alvarado’s score for acute appendicitis

Abstract: Background: Abdominal pain is one of the most frequent presentations to the emergency department (ED). Acute appendicitis is by no means an easy diagnosis to make and can baffle the best. Problems related to the diagnosis of appendicitis are evidenced by the significant negative laparotomy rate. A scoring system described by Alvarado was designed to reduce the negative appendicectomy rate without increasing morbidity and mortality. Alvarado's score does not include ultrasonogram which is most commonly done inv… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 18 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this study, Alvarado score has a sensitivity -35.48%, specificity -92.11%, positive predictive value (PPV) -88%, negative predictive value (NPV) -46.67% and a diagnostic accuracy of 57%. [With 95% Confidence Interval] This is in accordance with other similar studies [18,19] . Combination of Alvarado score and Ultrasonography (atleast one positive) has proven to be effective in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis as it has a higher sensitivity, higher negative predictive value and a higher diagnostic accuracy.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…In this study, Alvarado score has a sensitivity -35.48%, specificity -92.11%, positive predictive value (PPV) -88%, negative predictive value (NPV) -46.67% and a diagnostic accuracy of 57%. [With 95% Confidence Interval] This is in accordance with other similar studies [18,19] . Combination of Alvarado score and Ultrasonography (atleast one positive) has proven to be effective in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis as it has a higher sensitivity, higher negative predictive value and a higher diagnostic accuracy.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 92%