Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of Alvarado scoring system relative to histopathological diagnosis for acute appendicitis: A retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Acute appendicitis (AA) is a surgical emergency that requires prompt diagnosis and suitable management. It may lead to complications resulting in mortality. To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Alvarado scoring system (ASS) for acute appendicitis concerning histopathological data.

Methodology

About 120 patients were selected for this study consisting of 96 males and 24 females age between 20 and 60. Alvarado scoring system is calculated for each patient after collecting data about demographics, laboratory findings, and clinical examination. Then, we compared it with histopathological diagnosis taking it as a gold standard. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. SPSS version 20 was used for analyzing the data.

Results

About 120 patients were included in our study. The male to female ratio was 3:1. Sensitivity and specificity were 83.3% and 41% respectively. While PPV and NPV were 85% and 41% respectively. The negative appendectomy rate was 21%. The area under the curve for receiving operating characteristics is 0.628.

Conclusion

ASS is a useful diagnostic tool regarding sensitivity and positive predictive value, especially in developing countries. It is cheap, reliable, and can be easily applied.

SUBMITTER: Naeem MT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9486849 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diagnostic accuracy of Alvarado scoring system relative to histopathological diagnosis for acute appendicitis: A retrospective cohort study.

Naeem Muhammad Tayyab MT Jamil Muhammad Amir MA Anwar Muhammad Imran MI Raza Hassan H Asad Ali A Jamil Hashaam H Tahir Muhammad Junaid MJ Bai Jharna J Ejaz Chauhan Tabssum Mohamad TM Asghar Muhammad Sohaib MS

Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) 20220902

<h4>Background</h4>Acute appendicitis (AA) is a surgical emergency that requires prompt diagnosis and suitable management. It may lead to complications resulting in mortality. To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Alvarado scoring system (ASS) for acute appendicitis concerning histopathological data.<h4>Methodology</h4>About 120 patients were selected for this study consisting of 96 males and 24 females age between 20 and 60. Alvarado scoring system is calculated for each patient after coll ...[more]

PMID: 36147117

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies of second opinions in the diagnosis of melanocytic skin lesions have examined blinded second opinions, which do not reflect usual clinical practice. The current study, conducted in the USA, investigated both blinded and nonblinded second opinions for their impact on diagnostic accuracy.MethodsIn total, 100 melanocytic skin biopsy cases, ranging from benign to invasive melanoma, were interpreted by 74 dermatopathologists. Subsequently, 151 dermatopathologists performed nonblinded second and third reviews. We compared the accuracy of single reviewers, second opinions obtained from independent, blinded reviewers and second opinions obtained from sequential, nonblinded reviewers. Accuracy was defined with respect to a consensus reference diagnosis.ResultsThe mean case-level diagnostic accuracy of single reviewers was 65.3% (95% CI 63.4-67.2%). Second opinions arising from sequential, nonblinded reviewers significantly improved accuracy to 69.9% (95% CI 68.0-71.7%; P < 0.001). Similarly, second opinions arising from blinded reviewers improved upon the accuracy of single reviewers (69.2%; 95% CI 68.0-71.7%). Nonblinded reviewers were more likely than blinded reviewers to give diagnoses in the same diagnostic classes as the first diagnosis. Nonblinded reviewers tended to be more confident when they agreed with previous reviewers, even with inaccurate diagnoses.ConclusionWe found that both blinded and nonblinded second reviewers offered a similar modest improvement in diagnostic accuracy compared with single reviewers. Obtaining second opinions with knowledge of previous reviews tends to generate agreement among reviews, and may generate unwarranted confidence in an inaccurate diagnosis. Combining aspects of both blinded and nonblinded review in practice may leverage the advantages while mitigating the disadvantages of each approach. Specifically, a second pathologist could give an initial diagnosis blinded to the results of the first pathologist, with subsequent nonblinded discussion between the two pathologists if their diagnoses differ.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of Alvarado scoring system relative to histopathological diagnosis for acute appendicitis: A retrospective cohort study.

Background

Methodology

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Diagnostic accuracy of Alvarado scoring system relative to histopathological diagnosis for acute appendicitis: A retrospective cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets