Value of Alvarado scoring system in diagnosis of acute appendicitis

Bouali, Mounir; Berni, Yassine El; Moufakkir, Aziz; Bakouri, Abdelilah El; Hattabi, Khalid El; Bensardi, Fatimazahra; Fadil, Abdelaziz

doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103642

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Alvarado score was also prospectively evaluated by bouali et al, and they noted that an Alvarado score of 7 or more was associated with a better diagnosis of acute appendicitis and a negative appendectomy rate of 4.8%. A cross sectional study by memon et al also confirmed this but the negative appendectomy rates were reduced in males and not female patients [19,20].…”

Section: Clinical Scoring Systems and Negative Appendectomy Ratementioning

confidence: 79%

Negative Appendectomy Rates -Current Prospective- A Review

Kumar

Soma

2023

AJMAH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The negative appendectomy rate is generally accepted in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis to prevent complications like perforation. This rate varies according to countries in western and eastern regions of the world. Clinical scoring systems, inflammatory markers and imaging have been used to reduce the negative appendectomy rate. The introduction of computerized tomography has improved the diagnostic accuracy of acute appendicitis. As this rate has been progressively decreasing over the past few years, a review article was done to look at the role of scoring systems, inflammatory markers, and imaging in diagnosing acute appendicitis and hence reduce the negative appendectomy rate.

show abstract

Section: Clinical Scoring Systems and Negative Appendectomy Ratementioning

confidence: 79%

Negative Appendectomy Rates -Current Prospective- A Review

Kumar

Soma

2023

AJMAH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previously, in a study where the Alvarado scoring performance was examined on 206 patients, Kundiona et al reported that the sensitivity and PPV for the Alvarado scoring system were 95.3% and 90.3%, respectively [19]. Similarly, Bouali et al showed that the sensitivity and specificity of the Alvarado scoring system were 94.9% and 72.7%, while PPV and NPV were 98.4% and 44.4%, respectively [20]. In another study, Noor et al found that the sensitivity and specificity of the Alvarado scoring system were 90% and 80%, respectively and PPV and NPV were 97.6% and 21.8%, respectively [21].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Efficiency of Four Different Scoring Systems in the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis

YILMAZ,

AYTEKİN,

YILMAZ

et al. 2023

Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of four commonly used scoring systems (Alvarado, Lintula, RIPASA, Tzanakis) in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in patients to be operated for acute appendicitis. Materials and Methods: We compared the results and efficacy of the scoring systems with the results of patients with an accurate histopathologic diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Results: A total number of 115 patients were included in the study (62 male and 53 female). For Alvarado, Lintula, RIPASA and Tzanakis scoring systems, sensitivity was 93.6%, 91.4%, 93.6%, 55.3%, specificity was 71.4%, 90.4%, 81%, 76%, Positive Predictive Value (PPV) was 93.6%, 97.7%, 95.7%, 91.2%, Negative Predictive Value (NPV) was 71.4%, 70.3%, 74%, 27.6%, respectively. Conclusion: Our findings show that among the four scoring systems, Alvarado, Lintula and RIPASA scoring systems are more effective scoring systems in diagnosing acute appendicitis whereas Tzanakis scoring system had a low diagnostic efficiency. Since ultrasonography findings have a high impact on Tzanakis scoring system, by working with an experienced radiology clinic, Tzanakis scoring system could be also a powerful scoring system at the diagnostic stage. None of the four scoring systems has 100% predictive accuracy in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis and all scoring systems have some shortcomings. Nevertheless, we believe that the most important criteria in the diagnostic process are the clinic where the patients are admitted, the examination findings and the experience of the clinician. Scoring systems seem to support the diagnosis and guide the clinician.

show abstract

“…Estos resultados pueden sustentarse en la investigación de Awayshish et al, (6); que evaluaron el rendimiento diagnóstico de esta escala en una serie de 100 pacientes, con lo que obtuvieron una sensibilidad de 54% y una especificidad de 75%; por lo que concluyeron que este instrumento no es sensible para contribuir al diagnóstico de apendicitis aguda. Sin embargo, la consideración de Bouali et al, (14), la escala de Alvarado tuvo altos valores de sensibilidad (94,9%), especificidad (72,7%), por lo que consideran que es un instrumento con buena exactitud diagnóstica en casos de apendicitis aguda; lo que no coincide con los resultados de esta investigación.…”

Section: N(%)unclassified

Utilidad de escalas para mejorar la sospecha diagnóstica de apendicitis aguda en la sala de Emergencia del Hospital General Puyo, 2021

Robalino Díaz,

Carrillo Medina,

Sandoval Castañeda

et al. 2023

MedicienciasUTA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contexto: A través de los años se han desarrollado varias escalas para apoyar el diagnóstico y predecir la gravedad de los casos con un cuadro sugestivo de apendicitis aguda. En esta investigación se comparan dos de estas escalas. Objetivo: Determinar el grado de certeza diagnóstica de las escalas Alvarado y RIPASA como apoyo diagnóstico de Apendicitis Aguda, en la población del oriente del Hospital General Puyo, desde enero 2021 hasta diciembre 2021. Metodología: Investigación analítica, comparativa, retrospectiva, de exactitud diagnóstica. Población y muestra: Historias clínicas de 105 pacientes adultos admitidos con diagnóstico de apendicitis aguda en el periodo de estudio. Se utilizó el programa SPSS v25.0, se calcularon la sensibilidad (S), especificidad (E), valores predictivos (VPP y VPN), razones de verosimilitud (LR+ y LR-), OR diagnóstico (ORD), IC 95% y curvas Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC). Como pruebas de referencia se tomaron el criterio del cirujano y, el examen histopatológico. Resultados: Exactitud diagnóstica: Alvarado: Sensibilidad: 49,0% (35,9%-62,3%), Especificidad: 50,0 % (37,1%-62,9%); Valor Predictivo Positivo: 48,1% (34,2%-62,2%); Valor Predictivo Negativo: 50,9% (37,0%-64,7%), Razón de verosimilitud positiva: 0,9 (0,7-1,4), Razón de verosimilitud negativa: 1,0 (0,7-1,5); Odss ratio diagnóstico: 0,9 (0,4-2,1), Área bajo la curva: 51,8% (40,6%-63,0%). RIPASA: Sensibilidad: 76,5% (62,2%-86,7%), Especificidad: 12,9% (5,8%-25,5%), Valor Predictivo Positivo: 45,3% (34,7%-56,4%), Valor Predictivo Negativo: 36,8% (17,2%-61,4%), Razón de verosimilitud positiva: 0,88 (0,73-1,06), Razón de verosimilitud negativa: 1,82 (0,78-4,25), Odss ratio diagnóstico: 0,48 (0,17-1,35), Área bajo la curva: 60,8% (49,7%-71,9%). Conclusiones: No hubo diferencias significativas entre las escalas RIPASA y Alvarado en relación a la exactitud diagnóstica de apendicitis aguda en el Hospital General de Puyo. En ambos casos, el rendimiento fue “discreto”; pero, debido a las características de la muestra, no debería generalizarse este hallazgo.

show abstract

Value of Alvarado scoring system in diagnosis of acute appendicitis

Cited by 8 publications

References 17 publications

Negative Appendectomy Rates -Current Prospective- A Review

Negative Appendectomy Rates -Current Prospective- A Review

Evaluation of the Efficiency of Four Different Scoring Systems in the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis

Utilidad de escalas para mejorar la sospecha diagnóstica de apendicitis aguda en la sala de Emergencia del Hospital General Puyo, 2021

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About