Comparison between the specificity and sensitivity of the RIPASA and Alvarado Scoring systems in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis among patients with complaints of right iliac fossa

Assessment of Alvarado criteria, ultrasound, CRP, and their combination in patients with suspected acute appendicitis: a single centre study

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis (AA) is one of the most common reasons for visiting the emergency room. The lack of proper diagnosis and rapid treatment of AA may lead to severe complications such as intestinal perforation and increased mortality. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Alvarado criteria, ultrasound, and CRP criteria in comparison with their combined use in patients with suspected AA who presented to the emergency room.

METHODS

In this diagnostic accuracy study, 1411 patients with suspected AA who presented to the emergency department of Firoozabadi Hospital affiliated with Iran University of Medical Sciences and underwent appendectomy from October 2019 to October 2021 were examined. Nine hundred eighty-eight patients were enrolled. All patients were assessed using Alvarado, CRP, and ultrasound. The definitive diagnosis of AA was based on pathological findings and was considered the gold standard. Statistical analyses were performed with STATA VER 11.5. The diagnostic accuracy for each group was compared using the Pearson chi-square test. A value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The mean age was 29.57 ± 13.66 years. The sensitivity and specificity of Alvarado in the diagnostic accuracy of appendicectomy were 75.2% and 61.3% (CI = 95%), respectively. The sensitivity of ultrasound and CRP for predicting appendicitis was significantly higher than the Alvarado criteria. The diagnostic accuracy for CRP was significantly higher than ultrasound (64.9% vs. 60.7%, P: 0.003). The diagnostic accuracy of the simultaneous use of Alvarado + CRP and CRP + Ultrasound was significantly higher than that of Alvarado + ultrasound. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of the simultaneous use of all three criteria together (Alvarado + Ultrasound + CRP) were estimated to be 94.9%, 25.8%, and 81.5% (CI = 95%), respectively, which were significantly higher than the use of other criteria.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that the Alvarado criteria had inadequate diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy for diagnosing acute appendicitis. The diagnostic accuracy of acute appendicitis increases to over 90% using the three Alvarado, ultrasound, and CRP criteria at the same time.

Association Between Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) Scoring and Pathological Severity of Acute Appendicitis: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background and objectives Appendicitis is a frequent cause of abdominal pain. Because of the limited availability of imaging services in many medical centers and an urge to reduce the substantial number of unnecessary appendectomies, several clinical diagnostic tools have been constructed. A novel diagnostic tool, referred to as the Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) score, has been created to assist in identifying acute appendicitis (AA) in Asian nations. The study aimed to assess the correlation between RIPASA scores and the severity of appendicitis as determined by pathological examination. Materials and methods The study was a prospective observational investigation undertaken in the Department of General Surgery at Muslim education society (MES) Medical College Perinthalmanna over 12 months. The study included all patients who had been diagnosed with AA and underwent appendectomy, provided they satisfied both the inclusion and exclusion criteria. An analysis was conducted on a convenience sample of 225 individuals using a prestructured proforma. The RIPASA scores were estimated before their surgery, taking into account their age, gender, symptoms, physical examination findings, and laboratory findings. These scores were subsequently contrasted with the histopathological results obtained after the appendectomy. The individuals were categorized into three groups according to their RIPASA scores. The lower-score category, scores between 4 and 7. The intermediate-score category consists of scores ranging from 7.5 to 11.5, while the higher-score category includes scores of 12 and above. These scores are correlated with the histopathology report (HPR) to determine the presence of appendicitis, perforated appendix, appendicular abscess, or the absence of pathology observed. Results The study population comprised of 137 (60.9%) males and 88 (39.1%) females. Among these, 177 individuals (78.7%) were younger than 40 years, while 48 individuals (21.3%) were older than 40 years. Out of 225 cases, 146 cases were AA (64.9%), 27 (12%) appendicular abscess cases, and 41 (18.2%) appendicular perforation cases. The normal appendix was noted in 11 out of 225 cases in the low-score group. The association between the histopathological report and RIPASA score was found to be statistically highly significant (p=0.000). In the low-score group, there were 14 cases of appendicitis (53.8%), one case of appendicular abscess (3.8%), a total of 11 cases without pathology observed (42.3%), and no reported instances of appendicular perforation. In the intermediate-score category, there were 121 cases of appendicitis (89.6%), 12 cases of appendicular abscess (8.9%), 2 cases of appendicular perforation (1.5%), and no reported cases in the non-pathology category. Among the high-score category, there were 11 cases of appendicitis (17.2%), 14 cases of appendicular abscess (21.9%), 39 cases of appendicular perforation (60.9%), and no reported instances of negative appendectomy. Conclusion The study has shown that the RIPASA scoring system had a high diagnostic efficacy in identifying AA. This scoring system is an effective, dependable, cost-effective, noninvasive, reproducible, and safe diagnostic technique that does not require additional expenses or concerns.

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.

Varying negative appendectomy rates after laparoscopic appendectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Appendicitis is a common cause of acute abdominal pain, and treatment with laparoscopy has become increasingly common during the past two decades. Guidelines recommend that normal appendices are removed if operated for suspected acute appendicitis. It is unclear how many patients are affected by this recommendation. The aim of this study was to estimate the rate of negative appendectomies in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for suspected acute appendicitis.

METHODS

This study was reported following the PRISMA 2020 statement. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and Embase for retrospective or prospective cohort studies (with n ≥ 100) including patients with suspected acute appendicitis. The primary outcome was the histopathologically confirmed negative appendectomy rate after a laparoscopic approach with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We performed subgroup analyses on geographical region, age, sex, and use of preoperative imaging or scoring systems. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.

RESULTS

In total, 74 studies were identified, summing up to 76,688 patients. The negative appendectomy rate varied from 0% to 46% in the included studies (interquartile range 4-20%). The meta-analysis estimated the negative appendectomy rate to be 13% (95% CI 12-14%) with large variations between the individual studies. Sensitivity analyses did not change the estimate. The certainty of evidence by GRADE was moderate due to inconsistency in point estimates.

CONCLUSION

The overall estimated negative appendectomy rate after laparoscopic surgery was 13% with moderate certainty of evidence. The negative appendectomy rate varied greatly between studies.

Comparison of RIPASA and ALVARADO scores for risk assessment of acute appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

In the last decades, several clinical scores have been developed and currently used to improve the diagnosis and risk management of patients with suspected acute appendicitis (AA). However, some of them exhibited different values of sensitivity and specificity. We conducted a systematic review and metanalysis of epidemiological studies, which compared RIPASA and Alvarado scores for the diagnosis of AA.

Methods

This systematic review was conducted using PubMed and Web of Science databases. Selected studies had to compare RIPASA and Alvarado scores on patients with suspected AA and reported diagnostic parameters. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated by the Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Curve (HSROC) using STATA 17 (STATA Corp, College Station, TX) and MetaDiSc (version 1.4) software.

Results

We included a total of 33 articles, reporting data from 35 studies. For the Alvarado score, the Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Curve (HSROC) model produced a summary sensitivity of 0.72 (95%CI = 0.66–0.77), and a summary specificity of 0.77 (95%CI = 0.70–0.82). For the RIPASA score, the HSROC model produced a summary sensitivity of 0.95 (95%CI = 0.92–0.97), and a summary specificity of 0.71 (95%CI = 0.60–0.80).

Conclusion

RIPASA score has higher sensitivity, but low specificity compared to Alvarado score. Since these scoring systems showed different sensitivity and specificity parameters, it is still necessary to develop novel scores for the risk assessment of patients with suspected AA.

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

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.

•

We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the Alvarado scoring system (ASS) for acute appendicitis.

•

Sensitivity and specificity were 83.3% and 41%.

•

While PPV and NPV were 85% and 41% respectively.

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.