Evaluating the Diagnostic Accuracy of the Alvarado Score and Abdominal Ultrasound for Acute Appendicitis: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.

Background: Acute appendicitis is a complex diagnosis that often requires both clinical and radiological evaluation. Significant variations in diagnostic approaches are evident among clinicians and healthcare institutions. While certain guidelines advocate for risk stratification based on clinical characteristics, others emphasize the importance of pre-operative imaging. This study seeks to explore the accuracy of the Alvarado Score and abdominal ultrasound (AUS) in diagnosing acute appendicitis. Methods: Suspected cases of appendicitis admitted to Al-Thora Hospital in Ibb, Yemen, from Jan 2021 to July 2022 were evaluated. The demographics, clinical, and laboratory data were collected and analyzed. This study assessed Alvarado scores (calculated based on clinical evaluation and laboratory data) and pre-operative AUS findings, correlating them with post-operative and histopathology findings. The Alvarado scores and AUS sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were assessed using the ROC curve. Results: Out of 1021 cases of acute abdomen, 171 patients were suspected of appendicitis. Using AUS along with the Alvarado score, appendicitis was presumed in 137 patients who underwent appendectomy. 130 (94.9%) patients had positive intraoperative and histopathology findings while 7 (5.1%) had negative findings. The Alvarado Score had a sensitivity and specificity of 94.62% and 87.80% at cutoffs of 6, respectively [Area under the curve (AUC): 0.985; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.954 to 0.998; p < 0.0001]. Abdominal US showed a sensitivity of 98.46% and specificity of 82.93% (AUC:0.907; 95% CI, 0.853 to 0.946; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Alvarado's score and AUS exhibited high sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing acute appendicitis. The substantial accuracy and efficacy of both the Alvarado score and AUS support their utilization as primary investigative tools in resource-limited settings. This approach can help avoid unnecessary appendectomies and minimize the financial burden on patients.

Acute appendicitis poses a diagnostic challenge, with a high rate of false-positive cases identified post-operatively. Computed tomography has been recommended by several surgical societies; however, it is limited by unaffordability and unavailability. Herein, we utilized the Alvarado score along with abdominal ultrasound as an alternative accurate, and cost-effective diagnostic approach. In this study, the negative appendectomy rate was 5.1%. The sensitivity of abdominal ultrasound in detecting appendicitis was 98.5%, with a specificity of 82.9%. The positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were determined to be 94.8%, 94.4%, and 94.7%, respectively. The mean Alvarado score was 6.9±2.4, with a sensitivity and specificity of 97.81% and 97.06% at cutoffs of 6, respectively. The area under the curve values of the ROC curve for Alvarado's and abdominal ultrasound were 0.985 (95% CI, 0.954 to 0.998) and (AUC:0.907; 95% CI, 0.853 to 0.946), which was statistically significant (p < 0.0001).

A comparison of the accuracy of Tzanakis and Alvarado Score in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Acute appendicitis is one of the most commonly encountered surgical emergencies on a global level. Due to the requirement of an immediate clinical diagnosis and the presence of limited resources, clinicians and diagnosticians refer to scoring systems to diagnose this condition, among which Alvarado and Tzanakis scoring systems are widely used. This meta-analysis aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy of these two systems. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and SCOPUS databases. All studies that reported diagnostic parameters of Alvarado and Tzanakis scores in patients with suspected acute appendicitis were selected. Diagnostic values such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy were extracted from the selected studies and statistical analysis was performed with Meta Disc 1.4 software. Quality assessment of the selected studies was performed using the QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C tools. Fourteen studies were included in our meta-analysis which enrolled 2235 patients. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity of the Tzanakis score was calculated as 0.86 (95% CI; 0.84-00.87) while the specificity was 0.73 (95% CI; 0.69-0.78). In addition, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.9261 (SE; 0.0169) and the diagnostic Odds Ratio (OR) was 22.52 (95% CI; 9.47-53.56). The pooled sensitivity of Alvarado score was 0.67 (95% CI; 0.65-0.69) and the specificity was 0.74 (95% CI; 0.69-0.79). Moreover, the area under the curve (AUC) of the Alvarado score was 0.7389 (SE; 0.0489) and the diagnostic Odds Ratio was 4.92 (95% CI; 2.48-9.75). INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSION: The Tzanakis scoring system has a higher sensitivity, area under the curve, and diagnostic odds ratio when compared to the Alvarado score. However, the Alvarado score has a marginally better specificity making it more reliable in excluding acute appendicitis.

Diagnostic Efficacy Study Comparing Tzanakis Scoring System With Alvarado Scoring System in Effective Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis.

Objective Among the common causes of abdominal emergencies, acute appendicitis ranks at the top, particularly in the young population. While negative appendectomy is not uncommon, the risk of appendicular perforation is substantial if the diagnosis is missed or delayed. This study evaluated the diagnostic efficacy of the Tzanakis scoring system for acute appendicitis, comparing it with the Alvarado scoring system, considering the histopathological finding as the gold standard. Materials and methods This prospective observational study, conducted in the General Surgery department in a tertiary care hospital in India, included clinically diagnosed acute appendicitis cases posted for open or laparoscopic appendicectomy. Results The mean age for the 60 participants included in the study was 30.97±13.44, and the median was 24.5 yrs. The sensitivity of ultrasonography (USG) in diagnosing histopathological positive acute appendicitis was 89%, and the specificity was 50%. The sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values of the Tzanakis score were 87%, 50%, 96%, and 22%, respectively, and those of the Alvarado score were 54%, 75%, 96%, and 10%, respectively. Conclusion The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve for the Alvarado and Tzanakis scores showed that the area under the curve (AUC) was greater for the Tzanakis scoring system (0.670) than for the Alvarado scoring system (0.598). Differences between the AUCs were not statistically significant. Although the Tzanakis scoring system is more sensitive than the Alvarado scoring system in diagnosing acute appendicitis, studies with larger samples are needed to show the superiority of this scoring system over the Alvarado scoring system.

Efficacy of modified Alvarado score combined with ultrasound in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: a prospective analytical study.

Background: Appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency encountered in the emergency department, and diagnosis is difficult at times. Imaging and various clinical scoring are present to aid in the diagnosis. Ultrasound is an easily accessible modality and can accomplish more than a computed tomography (CT) scan at times. Modified Alvarado score (MAS) includes parameters that do not pose an extra financial burden to the patient. Combining both the imaging and clinical scoring systems, the authors decided to evaluate the combined MAS for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Methods: This is a prospective analytical study conducted in a tertiary hospital for one and a half years. Fifty-five patients with right lower quadrant pain were enroled, and evaluated along with an ultrasound. MAS and combined MAS were obtained, and the results of the histopathological examination were compared. Results: Out of 55 clinically diagnosed cases who underwent an emergency appendectomy, 27 were males and 28 were females. Of these, 50 cases had acute appendicitis as per histopathological examination. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of the MAS was 42%, 100%, 100%, 20.8%, 47.27%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of the USG were 84%, 40%, 93.3%, 20%, and 80%, respectively. Combining both the scores, the Combined MAS had the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of 98.18%, 0%, 90.7%, 0%, and 89.09%, respectively. Conclusion: As the combination of USG has raised the sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy of the MAS, it can be an alternative to CT/MRI imaging for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in resource-limited settings. This score requires further studies to validate with a larger sample size.

Diagnostic utility of the Alvarado scale in older adults with suspected acute appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis remains as a differential diagnosis in older patients with abdominal pain. The Alvarado scale may assist to guide the diagnosis and treatment of this entity. The operative characteristics of the scale are little known in this population. METHOD: We conducted a systematic review of original studies published between 1986 and 2022 evaluating the diagnostic performance of the Alvarado scale in older adults with suspected acute appendicitis. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. The evaluation of the methodological quality of the studies was performed according to the ROBINS-I criteria. RESULTS: Four original studies of retrospective design including 480 patients were identified. The heterogeneity and poor methodological quality limited an aggregate statistical analysis (meta-analysis). The value of the ROC curve of the scale varies between 0.799 and 0.969. From the available studies, the value of the ROC curve is lower in comparison to the RIPASA scale and comparable to the Lintula scale. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on the diagnostic performance of the Alvarado scale in older adults is limited. The poor methodological quality of the available studies calls for a prudent use of this tool in this population. Our findings offer opportunities for future research.

ANTECEDENTES: La apendicitis aguda es un diagnóstico diferencial en el adulto mayor con dolor abdominal. La escala de Alvarado se utiliza para orientar el diagnóstico y el tratamiento. Las características operativas de la escala son poco conocidas en este grupo de pacientes. MÉTODO: Revisión sistemática de estudios originales publicados entre 1986 y 2022 que evaluaron el rendimiento diagnóstico de la escala de Alvarado en adultos mayores con sospecha de apendicitis aguda, con base en la declaración PRISMA. La evaluación de la calidad metodológica de los estudios se realizó con los criterios ROBINS-I. RESULTADOS: Se identificaron cuatro estudios originales de diseño retrospectivo que incluyen 480 pacientes. La heterogeneidad y la baja calidad metodológica limitaron un análisis estadístico agregado (metaanálisis). El valor de la curva ROC de la escala varía entre 0.799 y 0.969. En los estudios disponibles, el valor de la curva ROC es inferior al de la escala RIPASA y similar al de la escala de Lintula. CONCLUSIONES: La evidencia que sustenta el rendimiento diagnóstico de la escala de Alvarado en los adultos mayores es limitada. La pobre calidad de los estudios disponibles advierte sobre el uso prudente de esta herramienta en este grupo poblacional. Los hallazgos identificados ofrecen oportunidades de investigación futura.

Effect of in-hospital delay on acute appendicitis severity: does time really matter?

Appendicitis is one of the most common abdominal emergencies. Evidence is controversial in determining if the in-hospital time delay to surgery can worsen the clinical presentation of appendicitis. This study aimed to clarify if in-hospital surgical delay significantly affected the proportion of complicated appendicitis in a large prospective cohort of patients treated with appendectomy for acute appendicitis. Patients were grouped into low, medium, and high preoperative risk for acute appendicitis based on the Alvarado scoring system. Appendicitis was defined as complicated in cases of perforation, abscess, or diffuse peritonitis. The primary outcome was correlation of in-hospital delay with the proportion of complicated appendicitis. The study includes 804 patients: 278 (30.4%) had complicated appendicitis and median time delay to surgery in low-, medium-, and high-risk group was 23.15 h (13.51-31.48), 18.47 h (10.44-29.42), and 13.04 (8.13-24.10) h, respectively. In-hospital delay was not associated with the severity of appendicitis or with the presence of postoperative complications. It appears reasonably safe to delay appendicectomy for acute appendicitis up to 24 h from hospital admission. Duration of symptoms was a predictor of complicated appendicitis and morbidity. Timing for appendicectomy in acute appendicitis should be calculated from symptoms onset rather than hospital presentation.

RIPASA versus Alvarado score in the assessment of acute appendicitis: A prospective study.

Objectives: This study aimed to compare Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) and Alvarado scoring to accurately identify acute appendicitis. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional prospective study was carried out in the department of surgery. Patients were enrolled and scored using RIPASA and Alvarado scoring systems. Appendectomy was done, and the specimen was sent for histopathology examination, which was used as the gold standard for diagnosis. Among 400 recruits, 11 patients were lost to follow-up, giving us a sample size of 389 patients. The cut-off value for RIPASA and Alvarado scores was 7.5 and 7.0, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy in diagnosing acute appendicitis of both scores were analyzed using SPSS. Results: Among 389 patients, 256 (66%) were males, and 277 (71%) were under the age of 40 years. RIPASA was more than 7.5 in 345 cases, while Alvarado was more than 7.0 in 261 patients. RIPASA score had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 95.8%, 87.9%, 98.9%, and 65.9%, respectively. In contrast, the ALVARADO score was 71.1% sensitive and 75.8% specific. RIPASA had a diagnostic accuracy of 95.12%, while Alvarado was only 71.46% accurate in diagnosing acute appendicitis. Conclusion: Compared to the Alvarado scoring system, RIPASA is a better tool in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for diagnosing acute appendicitis.

A Comparison of the Modified Alvarado Score and the Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (Ripasa) Score in a Southeast Asian Population With Histopathology as the Gold Standard.

Background The diagnosis of acute appendicitis has remained difficult despite it being one of the most common surgical emergencies in the world. One of the most frequently used scoring systems is the Modified Alvarado Score (MAS). However, the MAS has been known to be less efficient in Asian populations. To overcome this issue, the Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) score has been specifically developed to improve the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in Asian populations. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the RIPASA score compared to the MAS for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in a Southeast Asian population keeping histopathology as the gold standard. Methodology The study group comprised 150 patients. Data were collected from each patient using a simple proforma to ascertain both the MAS and the RIPASA score for each patient at the time of presentation. The patients then underwent open appendectomy and histopathology was used as the gold standard to determine the presence or absence of acute appendicitis in the excised specimens. Results The RIPASA score had a sensitivity and specificity of 89.83% and 59.38%, respectively, compared to 64.41% and 53.12%, respectively, for the MAS. Diagnostic accuracy was similarly higher for the RIPASA score at 83.33% versus 62.00% for the MAS. Conclusions The RIPASA score is superior to the MAS for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Using the RIPASA score instead of the MAS in Southeast Asian populations can lead to a more accurate and timely clinical diagnosis of patients with suspected acute appendicitis and help improve patient outcomes.

Clinical characteristics and application value of risk prediction models of acute appendicitis in rural Tibet: a retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Acute appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide; however, its diagnosis remains challenging, particularly in rural or remote areas such as Tibet. This study aimed to investigate the clinical characteristics and applicability of the routine risk prediction models of acute appendicitis for rural Tibetan populations. METHODS: Data of patients who underwent appendectomy at the Chaya People's Hospital between 1 April 2018 and 30 September 2021 were retrospectively collected. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with complicated appendicitis. The appendicitis risk prediction model scores for each patient were calculated by the binary logistic regression model based on the data. The index of union method was applied to identify the optimal cut-off value for the critical values of risk prediction models. RESULTS: We included 127 patients with suspected acute appendicitis in the study, consisting of 96 surgically and 31 non-surgically treated. The diagnoses of 93 patients who underwent appendectomy included 55 (59.1%) cases of uncomplicated appendicitis. Patients with complicated appendicitis had a significantly longer postoperative hospital stay (11.0 (interquartile range 8.8-13.3) days v 8.0 (interquartile range 6.0-11.0) days; p<0.001) and higher hospital costs (US$2147.2 (interquartile range US$1625.1-2516.6) v US$1487.9 (interquartile range US$1202.6-1809.2); p24 hours, age >30 years, and male sex were independent risk factors associated with complicated appendicitis. The appendicitis inflammatory response score showed the best performance among the prediction models. Incorporating imaging features in the prediction models may provide better diagnostic value for appendicitis. CONCLUSION: Acute appendicitis in the rural Tibetan population has unique clinical features. To reduce the incidence of complicated appendicitis, local health workers must balance religious beliefs and professional services for residents.

Risk of Conversion from Laparoscopic Appendectomy to Open Surgery: The Role of Clinical and Radiological Factors in Prediction.

Introduction: Laparoscopic appendectomy is the most preferred surgical method in the treatment of acute appendicitis. In our study, we aim to determine the clinical and radiological factors affecting conversion from laparoscopic appendectomy to open surgery. Materials and Methods: All patients older than 18 years, who were operated on with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the General Surgery clinic of Prof. Dr. Ilhan Varank Training and Research hospital between January 2020 and January 2022, were included in the study. The data consisting of clinical, laboratory, and radiological (computed tomography) findings of the patients were evaluated retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups as those whose surgery was completed laparoscopically (Group 1) and those converted from laparoscopic appendectomy to open surgery (Group 2). The risk of conversion to open surgery was analyzed by binary logistic regression analysis as univariate and multivariate models. Results: Appendectomy was performed in 831 patients within the specified period. The surgery of 31 (3.73%) patients started laparoscopically; however, they were completed by converting to open surgery. Multivariable analysis showed that the risk of conversion to open surgery increased with leukocyte count, Alvarado score and with the presence of periappendiceal fluid and lymphadenopathy on CT. Conclusion: Our study shows that patients with high risk of returning to open surgery can be identified preoperatively with the risk analysis method in which clinical, laboratory, and radiological findings are evaluated together. We conclude that, starting the operation of these patients with the open technique from the beginning will prevent unnecessary expenditures and reduce morbidities.

Validation of the modified Alvarado score on patients attending A&E units with suspected appendicitis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of our prospective study was to confirm validity and diagnostic accuracy of the modified Alvarado score, which was developed at the Department of Surgery, University of Szeged, on patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of acute appendicitis (right lower quadrant complaints) at the A&E department. PATIENT POPULATION, METHODS: 138 patients were included in our study between 01.01.2019 and 01.01.2020. For patients attending A&E, the first medic calculated and recorded the modified Alvarado score before surgical consultation. The consulting surgeon decided on further treatment without knowing the score. Validation of the score was based on the pathology report of the removed appendix (whether the operation was warranted, and if the score also supported indication for surgery), if there was readmission or surgery due to worsening symptoms after discharge from A&E. We also examined if there was any connection between the value of the Alvarado score and the severity of inflammation. Our aim was to prove that using modified Alvarado score at the A&E Units helps to reduce patient's waiting time and avoid unnecessary surgical consultations. Furthermore our study included measuring the diagnostic accuracy of the ultrasound examination (specificity, sensitivity). RESULTS: Based on the results, patients presenting at A&E had a mean modified Alvarado score of 6.5. Comparing the score to histological results showed that the specificity of the modified Alvarado score was 100%, and its sensitivity was 80.7%. Based on Spearman's rank correlation (0.796) and ROC analysis (AUC 0.968), the modified Alvarado score has an excellent predictive value in diagnosing acute appendicitis. When comparing the patients' waiting times with the use of modified Alvarado score and without it we found that there was a significant difference in group also in group under 4 points and in group over 7 points when using modified Alvarado score, so the diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm should be much quicker with the help of the score. We found a correlation between the severity of inflammation based on the Fisher's exact test. Rank correlation of the same question also showed a significant connection. All patients had an US examination during their diagnostic course, its sensitivity was 82.6%, specificity was 87%. Based on this, we can conclude that the predictive value of the imaging method is good. CONCLUSIONS: We can conclude according to our results that the predictive value of the modified score is excellent, and it can be safely applied by non-surgeons in urgent care in the differential diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The new score incorporates the results of an easily obtainable, ionising radiation free imaging method, the ultrasound, which was not included in previous scores. With the help of the new score, the number of unnecessary surgical referrals and waiting times for patients are reduced, excess examinations will become avoidable.

Comparison of outcomes of open and laparoscopic appendectomy: A retrospective cohort study.

Background: Open appendectomy has been the conventional choice of treatment for acute appendicitis. However, nowadays laparoscopic approach is emerging for the benefits it provides, like lesser postoperative pain and lesser duration of hospital stay, but at the cost of higher expenses and longer operative duration. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was done at Shree Birendra Hospital from January 2018 to December 2021, with a total study population of 450 participants (300 in open appendectomy and 150 in laparoscopic appendectomy). Preoperative. Intraoperative and postoperative parameters were compared and analyzed between two groups using SPSS-25. Results: The mean age was 26.72 ± 9.70 in the open appendectomy (OA) and years 23.89 ± 6.32 in the laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) group. (p = 0.010) There was a significant difference between the mean operative time (46.08 ± 13.10 min in OA and 56.86 ± 11.70 min in LA, p = 0.000), length of hospital stay (1.28 ± 0.80 days in OA and 1.07 ± 0.25 days in LA, p = 0.000), course of oral analgesics (3.55 ± 0.68 days in OA and 3.00 days in LA p = 0.000) between OA groups and LA groups, while the total number of complications was less in the LA group however there was no statistically significant difference postoperative complications (p = 0.124) between the two groups in the surgical findings. Conclusion: All in all, the laparoscopic approach is a better option for uncomplicated appendicitis due to its less postoperative pain and shorter duration of hospital stay.

Adult appendicitis score versus Alvarado score: A comparative study in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

Background: Acute Appendicitis (AA) is the most common abdominal surgical emergency. It requires proper management to decrease mortality and morbidity. Clinical scoring systems for diagnosing AA aimed to decrease the use of radiological scans and the rate of negative appendectomies (NA). We aim to assess the adult appendicitis score (AAS) in the diagnosis prediction of AA. Method: A retrospective study with 1303 cases of AA is performed. We compared the correlation of AAS and Alvarado scores to postoperative histopathology. Specificity, sensitivity, Positive Predictive Value (PPV), and Negative Predictive Value (NPV) were assessed. ROC was used. Results: AAS risk stratification was applied to the study population. Group I for a low probability, and groups II and III for an intermediate and high probability of AA. We found that 159 patients were matched in group I, 505, and 639 were in groups II and III of AAS, respectively. The correlation between Alvarado and AAS with HP was significant. AAS ≥ 16 presented sensitivity and specificity of 50 % and 75.47 %, respectively, with PPV of 97.96 % and NPV of 6.02 %, with an accuracy of 51.04 %. Regarding AAS ≥ 11, the sensitivity was 88.96 %, specificity was 39.62 %, PPV was 97.2 %, NPV was 13.21 %, and accuracy was 86.95 %. Conclusion: AAS is relatively more accurate than Alvarado's score, especially in selecting a safe candidate for discharge from an emergency. In addition, AAS is found to decrease the need for radiological images and NA rate more than Alvarado.

Assessment of the Diagnostic Reliability of Modified Alvarado Scores and Abdominal Ultrasonography in Acute Appendicitis.

Introduction Acute appendicitis is a common surgical emergency. Clinical assessment plays a major role; however, subtle clinical features in early stages and atypical presentation makes diagnosis challenging. Ultrasonography (USG) of the abdomen is a usual investigation that aids in diagnosis, however, it is operator dependent. A contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) of the abdomen is more accurate; however, it exposes the patient to hazardous radiation. The study aimed to combine clinical assessment and USG abdomen in the reliable diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Objectives The objective of this study was to assess the diagnostic reliability of the Modified Alvarado Score and ultrasonography of the abdomen in acute appendicitis. Material and methods All patients with right iliac fossa pain, clinically suspected of having acute appendicitis, admitted to the department of general surgery, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS), Bhubaneswar, between January 2019 and July 2020, who gave consent were included. Clinically, Modified Alvarado Score (MAS) was calculated, after which patients were subjected to USG abdomen, where findings were noted and a sonologic score was calculated. The study group was the patients who needed appendicectomy (n=138). Operative findings were noted. Histopathological diagnosis of acute appendicitis was deemed as confirmatory in these cases and was correlated with MAS and USG scores to determine diagnostic accuracy. Results A combined clinicoradiological (MAS + USG) score of seven showed a sensitivity of 81.8% and a specificity of 100%. The specificity of score seven or above was 100%; however, the sensitivity at 81.8%. The diagnostic accuracy of the clinicoradiological was 87.5%. The negative appendicectomy rate was 4.34%, with a diagnosis of acute appendicitis being confirmed for 95.7% of patients upon histopathological examination. Conclusion The MAS and USG of the abdomen, which is an affordable and non-invasive tool, showed increased diagnostic reliability, and hence it can help reduce the use of CECT abdomen, as CECT abdomen is considered as a gold standard for confirmation or exclusion of diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Use of the combined scoring system of MAS and USG abdomen can be used as a cost-effective alternative.

Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis: A Cross-sectional Study on Alvarado's Score from a Low Income Country.

Background: Alvarado score is the most widely used scoring system for diagnosing acute appendicitis, globally. There have been concerns regarding the diagnostic accuracy of this score as it was shown to have lower sensitivity in certain populations like Blacks and Asians. Despite its wide clinical use in the Ethiopian set up, the diagnostic accuracy of this score remained largely unexamined in this population. Methodology: A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted and all adult patients who presented with right lower quadrant abdominal pain and evaluated with a clinical impression of acute appendicitis were enrolled in the study. Data was collected by trained surgical residents over a period of six months (August 2019- January 2020) and analysed using SPSS version 25. Results: A total of 235 patients were enrolled in this study among whom two thirds were males. The majority of the study participants (61.7%) had an Alvarado score of ≥7 while almost a quarter of them had a score of <4. The mean Alvarado score in this study was 7 ± 1.8 whereas the median and the mode were 7 and 9 respectively. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of Alvarado score were 99.1%, 55.6%, 98.2% and 62.5% respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of this score was superior in males compared to females (99.3% vs 97.6% and 80% vs 25%). A score of ≥5 was found to have a sensitivity of 98.4%. Conclusion: Alvarado score was found to have good sensitivity and positive predictive value in this study. A score of ≥5 can be used to "rule in" the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Hence, the use of Alvarado score's in the Ethiopian setup is to be encouraged.

Clinical scores (Alvarado and AIR scores) versus imaging (ultrasound and CT scan) in the diagnosis of equivocal cases of acute appendicitis: a randomized controlled study.

About 50% of acute appendicitis cases are atypical in their presentation. The objectives of this study was to assess and compare the feasibility of clinical scores [Alvarado and Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR)] and imaging [ultrasound and abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) scan] in the evaluation of equivocal cases of acute appendicitis in a clinical trial to identify that subset of patients who really need and will benefit from imaging, mainly CT scan. Methods: A total of 286 consecutive adult patients with suspected acute appendicitis were included. The clinical scores, including Alvarado and AIR scores and ultrasound, were done for all patients. Abdominal and pelvic CT scans were done for 192 patients to resolve the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy rate of both clinical scores and imaging (ultrasound and CT scan) were compared. The final histopathology was used as the gold standard for which the diagnostic feasibility of the clinical score and imaging were compared. Results: Out of 286 total patients who presented with right lower quadrant abdominal pain, a presumptive diagnosis of acute appendicitis was made in 211 patients (123 males and 88 females) after thorough clinical evaluation, clinical scores, and imaging, and they were submitted to appendicectomy. The overall prevalence of acute appendicitis proved by histopathology as a gold standard was 89.1% (188 patients) with a negative appendectomy rate of 10.9%. Simple acute appendicitis was reported in 165 (78.2%) patients and perforated appendicitis in 23 (10.9%) patients. For patients with equivocal clinical scores (≥4 to ≤6), the sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and accuracy rate of CT scan were significantly higher than those of Alvarado and AIR scores. Patients with low clinical scores (≤4) and high clinical scores (≥7), the sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and accuracy rate of clinical scores and imaging were comparable. The diagnostic feasibility of AIR scores was significantly higher than the Alvarado score, and the clinical scores were associated with significantly higher diagnostic accuracy than ultrasound. CT scan is unlikely to be needed and will add little to the diagnosis of acute appendicitis for patients with high clinical scores (≥7). The sensitivity of the CT scan for perforated appendicitis was lower than that for nonperforated appendicitis. The use of CT scans for query cases did not change the negative appendectomy rate. Conclusion: CT scan evaluation is beneficial only for patients with equivocal clinical scores. For patients with high clinical scores, surgery is recommended. AIR score was superior to the Alvarado score in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. A CT scan is usually not required for patients with low scores since acute appendicitis is unlikely; in such cases, ultrasound could be of help to exclude other diagnoses.

The diagnostic value of the systemic immune-inflammatory index in acute appendicitis cases in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Acute appendicitis (AA) is one of the most common causes of acute abdomen conditions and continues to cause mortality and morbidity despite all the improvements. There is still a necessity for inexpensive and easily calculable index and scoring systems with fewer side effects for the diagnosis of AA and the detection of complications. Since the systemic immune-inflammation index (SIII) is an index that could be used in this context, we aimed to measure the success and reliability of SIII for the diagnosis of AA and related complications and to contribute to the literature. METHODS: Our study was carried out retrospectively in a tertiary care hospital and conducted with 180 AA patients (study group-SG) and 180 control group (CG) patients. Demographic data, laboratory data, and clinical data of the cases, as well as the Alvarado score (AS), adult appendicitis score (AAS), and SIII and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) values calculated from laboratory data, were recorded in the previously created study form. p<0.05 was accepted as the significance level for the study. RESULTS: In this study, age and gender were similar in the SG and CG groups. SIII and NLR levels calculated in SG cases were found to be significantly higher than CG. In addition, SIII and NLR levels were found to be significantly higher in complicated AA cases than in complicated cases. Although SIII was more significant in the diagnosis of AA, NLR was more successful than SIII in detecting the presence of complications. SIII, NLR, AAS, and AS were significantly positively correlated in the diagnosis of AA. In the presence of peritonitis, SIII and NLR were also found to be significantly higher when compared to cases without peritonitis. CONCLUSIONS: We found that SIII is a usable index in the diagnosis of AA and the prediction of complicated AA. However, NLR was found to be more significant than SIII in estimating complicated AA. In addition, it is recommended to be careful in terms of peritonitis in cases with high SIII and NLR levels.

The Value of the Alvarado Score for the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Relevant guidelines recommend the use of the Alvarado score (AS) to assist in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA) in children. To provide reference evidence for the clinical application of AS, we performed a meta-analysis of studies related to the diagnostic accuracy of AS in children with AA. METHODS: We searched the relevant literature from databases including CNKI, WanFangdata, VIP, CBM, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases from the date of database creation to April 30, 2022, and screened them according to nadir criteria, followed by data extraction and then combined effect sizes to assess the accuracy of AS for diagnosis in children. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies involving 2579 cases were finally included, including 19 studies with Alvarado score and 8 studies with modified Alvarado Score (1 study included both Alvarado Score and modified Alvarado Score). The combined sensitivity (SE) of AS for diagnosing AA in children was 76.0% (95% CI 74.0-78.0%; I2 = 95.1%); combined specificity (SP) was 71.0% (95% CI 68.0-74.0%; I2 = 86.4%); combined positive likelihood ratio (LR+) was 2.43 (95% CI 1.92- 3.07; I2 = 78.7%); combined negative likelihood ratio (LR-) was 0.28 (95% CI 0.20-0.41; I2 = 94.2%); combined AUC = 0.8092, Q∗ = 0.7439; combined diagnostic ratio (DOR) was 8.96 (95% CI 5.65 -14.21; I2 = 76.2%). The combined effect size I2 was greater than 50% for all children with a modified AS diagnosis of AA, so all analyses used a random-effects model, which showed a combined SE of 87.0% (95% CI 85.0 - 88.0%; I2 = 85.5%); the combined SP was 47.0% (95% CI 43.0 - 51.0%. I2 = 88.7%); combined LR+ was 1.68 (95% CI 1.31-2.17; I2 = 85.9%); combined LR-was 0.28 (95% CI 0.20-0.39; I2 = 74.3%); combined AUC = 0.8672 and Q∗ = 0.7978. The combined DOR was 6.43 (95% CI 3.38-12.26; I2 = 80.0%). CONCLUSION: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that the accuracy of AS in diagnosing AA in children is moderate, and AS can be an auxiliary tool for the diagnosis of AA in children, relying on AS alone for the diagnosis of AA is not recommended; AS can be further improved scientifically to increase its diagnostic value.

A systematic review and meta-regression for validation of the Alvarado score as a tool for predicting acute appendicitis.

The Alvarado score (AS) has not been widely used for diagnosing acute appendicitis although it has shown to be a good predictor for diagnosing appendicitis. The aim was to perform a systematic review of the available literature and synthesize the evidence. Methods: A systematic review was performed as per the PRISMA guidelines using search engines like Ovid, PubMed, and Google Scholar with predefined, strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality assessment of included studies was performed using the QUADAS 2 tool. Summary statistics were performed for all variables. A linear regression model was performed between dependent and independent variables using STATA software. Heterogeneity testing showed significant heterogeneity within the included studies; hence, a forest plot with pooled estimates could not be constructed, and therefore a meta-regression was performed. Results: Seventeen full-text articles met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Ten of which were identified as low-risk studies. Five studies were included in final data pooling with total patients being 2239 and mean age of 31.9 years. (1) Linear regression demonstrated an association between 'histological appendicitis' and 'AS 7-0' with patients receiving intervention, with a significant P value of less than 0.005. (2) Meta-regression demonstrated a positive coefficient (0.298), a positive Z score of 2.20 with a significant P value of 0.028 for patients with 'high AS' who received interventions that were significantly proven to be 'histologically appendicitis', indicating a cause-and-effect relationship. Conclusion: High AS (7 and above) is a significant predictor of acute appendicitis. The authors recommend further prospective randomized clinical trials to establish a cause-and-effect relationship.

Comparison of Alvarado score, appendicitis inflammatory response score (AIR) and Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha appendicitis (RIPASA) score in predicting acute appendicitis.

Introduction: Acute Appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency encountered in emergency departments. To prevent the rate of negative appendectomies, different systems i.e. Alvarado score and Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score (AIR) scores were used, but their diagnostic accuracy in Asian population is questionable. Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha (RIPASA) score has showed promising results in the recent literature. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of Alvarado, AIR and RIPASA scores in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Methods: Alvarado, AIR and RIPASA scores were prospectively applied to 132 included patients that were admitted with provisional diagnosis of acute appendicitis and then their surgery was performed in General Surgery Unit, Hayatabad Medical Complex Peshawar, Pakistan from 1st January 2022 to 31st July 2022. Final diagnosis was confirmed by histopathology report and scores were correlated with final report. Cut off value of score >7, >5 and >7.5 were set for Alvarado, AIR and RIPASA score, respectively according to previous literature. Statistics analysis was done for all 3 scoring systems on SPSS version 23. Results: Of 132 patients, there were n = 79(59.8%) males and n = 53(40.2%) females. Mean age was 24 years (SD ± 11.6) with youngest patient of 9 years and oldest one was 70 years old. Negative Appendectomy rate was 8.3%(n = 11). RIPASA score was superior to AIR and Alvarado score in Sensitivity, NLR, Accuracy and Area under the Curve. AIR score performed better in specificity, NPV, PLR compared to RIPASA and Alvarado score. Conclusion: RIPASA score is an overall better scoring system in diagnosing acute appendicitis in compared to Alvarado and AIR score.