Diagnostic performance of CT for pediatric patients with suspected appendicitis in various clinical settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
To assess the diagnostic performance of CT for pediatric patients with suspected appendicitis in various clinical settings and the proportion of acute appendicitis on final diagnosis among equivocal CT findings.
MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched until October 21, 2017, for studies investigating diagnostic performance of CT for acute appendicitis in pediatric patients confirmed by histopathologic findings and/or clinical follow-up. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a hierarchical logistic regression modeling. The proportion of true appendicitis among patients with inconclusive CT results was obtained using fixed and random effects meta-analyses.
Twenty-two articles with 3396 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95% (95% CI, 93−97%) and 94% (95% CI, 90−96%), respectively, and the area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curve was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96−0.99). Subgroup analyses revealed a comparable diagnostic performance in the low-dose CT group (sensitivity, 97%; specificity, 96%) and the unenhanced group (sensitivity, 95%; specificity, 95%). Other subgroups (publication year, study design, enrolled population, true appendicitis proportion, CT channel number, and slice thickness) also showed good diagnostic performance. Six studies reporting the true appendicitis proportion among patients with equivocal CT findings had pooled proportion of 17% (95% CI, 9−29%).
CT showed good performance for suspected appendicitis in pediatric patients under various clinical settings, including in cases with dose reduction or absence of IV contrast. The prevalence of true appendicitis among patients with equivocal appendicitis results on CTs was not low; therefore, clinical attention should not be disregarded in this population.
KeywordsAppendicitis Appendix Child X-ray computed tomography
Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic
Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2
This study was supported by a grant (2017-0202) from Asan Medical Center Children’s Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Chong Hyun Suh, MD (Department of Radiology, Asan Medical Center), assisted in a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors of this manuscript (Dong Wook Kim, Hee Mang Yoon, Jeong-Yong Lee, Jung Heon Kim, Ah Young Jung, Jin Seong Lee, and Young Ah Cho) declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
Consent to participate
Informed consent was not required because of the nature of our study, which was a systemic review and meta-analysis.
- 3.Smith MP, Katz DS, Lalani T, Carucci LR, Cash BD, Kim DH, Piorkowski RJ, Small WC, Spottswood SE, Tulchinsky M, Yaghmai V, Yee J, Rosen MP (2015) ACR appropriateness criteria(R) right lower quadrant pain—suspected appendicitis. Ultrasound Q 31:85–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/ruq.0000000000000118 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Callahan MJ, Anandalwar SP, MacDougall RD, Stamoulis C, Kleinman PL, Rangel SJ, Bachur RG, Taylor GA (2015) Pediatric CT dose reduction for suspected appendicitis: a practice quality improvement project using artificial Gaussian noise—part 2, clinical outcomes. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:636–644. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.14.12965 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Dillman JR, Gadepalli S, Sroufe NS, Davenport MS, Smith EA, Chong ST, Mazza MB, Strouse PJ (2016) Equivocal pediatric appendicitis: unenhanced MR imaging protocol for nonsedated children—a clinical effectiveness study. Radiology 279:216–225. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015150941 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Kinner S, Pickhardt PJ, Riedesel EL, Gill KG, Robbins JB, Kitchin DR, Ziemlewicz TJ, Harringa JB, Reeder SB, Repplinger MD (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of MRI versus CT for the evaluation of acute appendicitis in children and young adults. AJR Am J Roentgenol 209:911–919. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.16.17413 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 20.Krishnamoorthi R, Ramarajan N, Wang NE, Newman B, Rubesova E, Mueller CM, Barth RA (2011) Effectiveness of a staged US and CT protocol for the diagnosis of pediatric appendicitis: reducing radiation exposure in the age of ALARA. Radiology 259:231–239. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100984 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Lowe LH, Draud KS, Hernanz-Schulman M, Newton MR, Heller RM, Stein SM, Speroff T (2001) Nonenhanced limited CT in children suspected of having appendicitis: prospective comparison of attending and resident interpretations. Radiology 221:755–759. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2213010379 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Sivit CJ, Applegate KE, Berlin SC, Myers MT, Stallion A, Dudgeon DL, Borisa VJ, Morrison SC, Weinert DM, Grisoni ER (2000) Evaluation of suspected appendicitis in children and young adults: helical CT. Radiology 216:430–433. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.216.2.r00au38430 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 32.Weyant MJ, Eachempati SR, Maluccio MA, Rivadeneira DE, Grobmyer SR, Hydo LJ, Barie PS (2000) Interpretation of computed tomography does not correlate with laboratory or pathologic findings in surgically confirmed acute appendicitis. Surgery 128:145–152. https://doi.org/10.1067/msy.2000.107422 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 151:W65–W94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, Leeflang MM, Sterne JA, Bossuyt PM (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Higgins J, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration website. handbook. http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/. Accessed 8 September 2017
- 42.Yoon HM, Suh CH, Cho YA, Kim JR, Lee JS, Jung AY, Kim JH, Lee JY, Kim SY (2018) The diagnostic performance of reduced-dose CT for suspected appendicitis in paediatric and adult patients: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 28:2537–2548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5231-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 43.Howell JM, Eddy OL, Lukens TW, Thiessen ME, Weingart SD, Decker WW (2010) Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of emergency department patients with suspected appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med 55:71–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.10.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 45.Poletti PA, Platon A, De Perrot T, Sarasin F, Andereggen E, Rutschmann O, Dupuis-Lozeron E, Perneger T, Gervaz P, Becker CD (2011) Acute appendicitis: prospective evaluation of a diagnostic algorithm integrating ultrasound and low-dose CT to reduce the need of standard CT. Eur Radiol 21:2558–2566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2212-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar