Sensibilidad, especificidad y fiabilidad de la escala RIPASA en el diagnóstico de apendicitis aguda en relación con la escala de Alvarado

Performance and diagnostic accuracy of scoring systems in adult patients with suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

This study aims to determine the most accurate appendicitis scoring system and optimal cut-off points for each scoring system.

METHODS

This single-centred prospective cohort study was conducted from January-to-June 2021, involving all patients admitted on suspicion of appendicitis. All patients were scored according to the Alvarado score, Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score, Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha (RIPASA) score and Adult Appendicitis score (AAS). The final diagnosis for each patient was recorded. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each system. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed for each scoring system, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. Optimal cut-off scores were calculated using Youden's Index.

RESULTS

A total of 245 patients were recruited with 198 (80.8%) patients underwent surgery. RIPASA score had higher sensitivity and specificity than other scoring systems without being statistically significant (sensitivity 72.7%, specificity 62.3%, optimal score 8.5, AUC 0.724), followed by the AAS (sensitivity 60.2%, specificity 75.4%, optimal score 14, AUC 0.719), AIR score (sensitivity 76.7%, specificity 52.2%, optimal score 5, AUC 0.688) and Alvarado score (sensitivity 69.9%, specificity 62.3%, optimal score 5, AUC 0.681). Multiple logistic regression revealed anorexia (p-value 0.018), right iliac fossa tenderness (p-value 0.005) and guarding (p-value 0.047) as significant clinical factors independently associated with appendicitis.

CONCLUSION

Appendicitis scoring systems have shown moderate sensitivity and specificity in our population. The RIPASA scoring system has shown to be the most sensitive, specific and easy-to-use scoring system in the Malaysian population whereas the AAS is most accurate in excluding low-risk patients.

Classification systems of acute appendicitis as an indicator for paediatric surgical consultation of children with acute abdominal pain

AIM

This study examined if the classification systems for acute appendicitis could be applied in the emergency department as an indicator for surgical consultation, in order to reduce unnecessary paediatric surgery admission.

METHODS

The Alvarado Score (ALS) and the Pediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS) were applied. The decisions for hospitalisation and treatment were made independent of the scores.

RESULTS

In total, 307 children with abdominal pain suggestive of acute appendicitis were included. We used a cut-off point of 7 and divided the patients into groups; the group with score ≥ 7 points was considered the positive ALS and/or PAS group, and the group with score < 7 points was the negative ALS and/or PAS group. The same process for cut-values set at 6 points was followed. The joint probabilities for the 7-point-thresholds were: ALS-sensitivity 84%, PAS-sensitivity 85%, ALS-specificity 92%, PAS-specificity 92%, ALS-positive predictive value (PPV) 83%, PAS-PPV 84% and 93% negative predictive value (NPV) for both scores. Considering the 6-point-thresholds, we estimated: 94% sensitivity for both scores, 74% ALS-specificity, 84% PAS-specificity, 66% ALS-PPV, 73% PAS-PPV, 91% ALS-NPV and 97% PAS-NPV.

CONCLUSION

The scoring systems provided acceptable prediction of patients with and without appendicitis. They may be of use in the emergency department, as assistive diagnostic-tools, in order to reduce paediatric surgery consultations, admissions and treatment costs.

RIPASA versus Alvarado score in the assessment of suspected appendicitis in children: a prospective study

Background

Diagnosis of acute appendicitis remains a problem in children with right lower quadrant pain.

Challenging diagnosis and fears of missing an inflamed appendix may lead to a negative appendectomy. Many scoring systems have been developed to reduce ambiguities in the diagnosis of appendicitis. Alvarado is one of the most commonly used scoring methods in pediatric patients. The RIPASA score is considered to be a better diagnostic scoring method in adults compared to Alvarado. The present study aims to compare RIPASA and Alvarado scoring systems in determining the possibility of acute appendicitis in children with right lower quadrant pain.

This study included 179 consecutive pediatric patients who were referred to pediatric surgery with suspicion of acute appendicitis. The cut-off value was >7.5 for the RIPASA score vs. ≥7 for the Alvarado score. The possibility of appendicitis was divided into three groups for the Alvarado score and four groups for the RIPASA score.

Results

In this study, 158 of 179 patients were operated on. In 140 of the operated patients, the diagnosis of appendicitis was confirmed by histopathology. The negative appendectomy rate was 11.4%. Specificity and negative predictive value of RIPASA score were higher than those of Alvarado (p<0.001). No difference was found between the two scores concerning sensitivity, positive predictive value, and the area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (p>0.05).

Conclusion

The RIPASA scoring system can be used as an alternative to the Alvarado scoring system in the management of patients with right lower quadrant pain in emergency services and pediatric outpatient clinics. With the use of the RIPASA score, more patients with a low likelihood of appendicitis can be detected and further contributed to the reduction of the negative appendectomy rate.

Diagnostic accuracy of Alvarado, RIPASA and Tzanakis scoring system in acute appendicitis: A prospective observational study

Our prospective observational study, enrolling 167 patients undergoing emergency appendicectomy, served to evaluate the Alvarado, Tzanakis and RIPASA diagnostic scores. The latter was found to be a better scoring system because of its higher diagnostic accuracy. At centres with limited expertise in ultrasonography, RIPASA outperforms the Tzanakis score. Although easy to use, the Alvarado score was useful only to 'rule in' cases with AA with significant accuracy but at the cost of low sensitivity. It cannot be effectively used in triaging.

Diagnosis of pain in the right iliac fossa. A new diagnostic score based on Decision-Tree and Artificial Neural Network Methods

INTRODUCTION

Pain in the right iliac fossa (RIF) continues to pose diagnostic challenges. The objective of this study is the development of a RIF pain diagnosis model based on classification trees of type CHAID (Chi-Square Automatic Interaction Detection) and on an artificial neural network (ANN).

METHODS

Prospective study of 252 patients who visited the hospital due to RIF pain. Demographic, clinical, physical examination and analytical data were registered. Patients were classified into 4 groups: NsP (nonspecific RIFP group), AA (acute appendicitis), NIRIF (RIF pain with no inflammation) and IRIF (RIF pain with inflammation). A CHAID-type classification tree model and an ANN were constructed. The classic models (Alvarado [ALS], Appendicitis Inflammatory Response [AIR] and Fenyö-Linberg [FLS]) were also evaluated. Discrimination was assessed using ROC curves (AUC [95% CI]) and the correct classification rate (CCR).

RESULTS

53% were men. Mean age 33.3±16 years. The largest group was the NsP (45%), AA (37%), NRIF (12%) and IRIF (6%). The analytical model results were: ALS (0.82 [0.76-0.87]), AIR (0.83 [0.77-0.88]) and FLS (0.88 [0.84-0.92]). CHAID determined 10 decision groups: 3 with high probability for NsP, 3 high for AA and 4 special groups with no predominant diagnosis. CCR of ANN and CHAID were 75% and 74.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodology based on CHAID-type classification trees establishes a diagnostic model based on four pain groups in RIF and generates decision rules that can help us in the diagnosis of processes with RIF pain.