Diagnostic Accuracy of Abdominal Ultrasound for Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
- 1.2k Downloads
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of abdominal ultrasound (US) for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA), in terms of sensitivity, specificity and post-test probabilities for positive and negative result.
A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane library and Science Citation Index Expanded from January 1994 to October 2014 was performed. Two authors independently evaluated studies for inclusion, extracted data and performed analyses. The reference standard for evaluation of final diagnosis was pathohistological report on tissue obtained at appendectomy. Summary sensitivity, specificity and post-test probability of AA after positive and negative result of US with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.
Out of 3306 references identified through electronic searches, 17 reports met the inclusion criteria, with 2841 included participants. The summary sensitivity and specificity of US for diagnosis of AA were 69% (95% CI 59–78%) and 81% (95% CI 73–88%), respectively. At the median pretest probability of AA of 76.4%, the post-test probability for a positive and negative result of US was 92% (95% CI 88–95%) and 55% (95% CI 46–63%), respectively.
Abdominal ultrasound does not seem to have a role in the diagnostic pathway for diagnosis of AA in suspected patients. The summary sensitivity and specificity of US do not exceed that of physical examination. Patients that require additional diagnostic workup should be referred to more sensitive and specific diagnostic procedures, such as computed tomography.
KeywordsDiagnostic Accuracy Included Study Acute Appendicitis Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve Acute Abdominal Pain
- 6.Abdul Rahman MM, Salh AM, Al-Sand SN (2006) The value of history taking, physical examination in the study of acute appendicitis in comparison to histopathology. Iraqi Postgrad Med J 5:46–53Google Scholar
- 16.Moineddin DAS, Kellenberger CJ, Epelman M et al (2006) US or CT for diagnosis of appendicitis in children and adults? A meta-analysis. Radiology 24:83–94Google Scholar
- 17.Wilms IM, de Hoog DE, de Visser DC et al (2011) Appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment for acute appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11:CD008359Google Scholar
- 20.Sauerland S, Lefering R, Neugebauer EA (2004) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD001546Google Scholar
- 23.Vinz H, Neu J (2007) Malpractice claims relating to the diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis-decisions of the Norddeutsche Schlichtungsstelle (Expert Panel for Extrajudicial Claims Resolution of the Medical Associations in Northern Germany). Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 101:553–563PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer Program] (2012) Version 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane CollaborationGoogle Scholar
- 27.Takwoingi Y, Deeks JJ (2015) MetaDAS: a SAS macro for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies, version 1.3. http://srdta.cochrane.org/sites/srdta.cochrane.org/files/uploads/METADAS_v1.3_txt.txt. Accessed on 15 Jan 2015
- 28.SAS 9.2 [Computer Program]. SAS E. Version 9.2. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc., 2008. Computer ProgramGoogle Scholar
- 34.Grodziński T, Gackowski W, Nyckowski P (2004) Ultrasonography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Pol Przegl Chir 76:1165–1174Google Scholar
- 36.Khanzada TW, Samad A, Sushel C (2009) Negative Appendectomy Rate: Can It Be Reduced? J Liaquat Uni Med Health Sci 8:19–22Google Scholar
- 37.Köksal H, Uysal B, Sarıbabıççı R (2009) The role of the Alvarado scoring system and ultrasonography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Gazi Med. J. 20:113–116Google Scholar
- 41.Saeed K, Mehboob F, Azam V (2009) Role of abdominal sonography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Rawal Med J 34:138–140Google Scholar