Cargando…

Discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis by ultrasound imaging, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy

BACKGROUND: Discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis is crucial. Patients with suspected complicated appendicitis are best treated by emergency surgery, whereas those with uncomplicated appendicitis may be treated with antibiotics alone. This study aimed to obtain summary estimates...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bom, W J, Bolmers, M D, Gans, S L, van Rossem, C C, van Geloven, A A W, Bossuyt, P M M, Stoker, J, Boermeester, M A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7944501/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33688952
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zraa030
_version_ 1783662689950629888
author Bom, W J
Bolmers, M D
Gans, S L
van Rossem, C C
van Geloven, A A W
Bossuyt, P M M
Stoker, J
Boermeester, M A
author_facet Bom, W J
Bolmers, M D
Gans, S L
van Rossem, C C
van Geloven, A A W
Bossuyt, P M M
Stoker, J
Boermeester, M A
author_sort Bom, W J
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis is crucial. Patients with suspected complicated appendicitis are best treated by emergency surgery, whereas those with uncomplicated appendicitis may be treated with antibiotics alone. This study aimed to obtain summary estimates of the accuracy of ultrasound imaging, CT and MRI in discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted by an electronic search in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for studies describing the diagnostic accuracy of complicated versus uncomplicated appendicitis. Studies were included if the population comprised adults, and surgery or pathology was used as a reference standard. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed with QUADAS-2. Bivariable logitnormal random-effect models were used to estimate mean sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Two studies reporting on ultrasound imaging, 11 studies on CT, one on MRI, and one on ultrasonography with conditional CT were included. Summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity in detecting complicated appendicitis could be calculated only for CT, because of lack of data for the other imaging modalities. For CT, mean sensitivity was 78 (95 per cent c.i. 64 to 88) per cent, and mean specificity was 91 (85 to 99) per cent. At a median prevalence of 25 per cent, the positive predictive value of CT for complicated appendicitis would be 74 per cent and its negative predictive value 93 per cent. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound imaging, CT and MRI have limitations in discriminating between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis. Although CT has far from perfect sensitivity, its negative predictive value for complicated appendicitis is high.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7944501
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79445012021-03-15 Discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis by ultrasound imaging, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy Bom, W J Bolmers, M D Gans, S L van Rossem, C C van Geloven, A A W Bossuyt, P M M Stoker, J Boermeester, M A BJS Open Systematic Review BACKGROUND: Discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis is crucial. Patients with suspected complicated appendicitis are best treated by emergency surgery, whereas those with uncomplicated appendicitis may be treated with antibiotics alone. This study aimed to obtain summary estimates of the accuracy of ultrasound imaging, CT and MRI in discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted by an electronic search in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for studies describing the diagnostic accuracy of complicated versus uncomplicated appendicitis. Studies were included if the population comprised adults, and surgery or pathology was used as a reference standard. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed with QUADAS-2. Bivariable logitnormal random-effect models were used to estimate mean sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Two studies reporting on ultrasound imaging, 11 studies on CT, one on MRI, and one on ultrasonography with conditional CT were included. Summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity in detecting complicated appendicitis could be calculated only for CT, because of lack of data for the other imaging modalities. For CT, mean sensitivity was 78 (95 per cent c.i. 64 to 88) per cent, and mean specificity was 91 (85 to 99) per cent. At a median prevalence of 25 per cent, the positive predictive value of CT for complicated appendicitis would be 74 per cent and its negative predictive value 93 per cent. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound imaging, CT and MRI have limitations in discriminating between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis. Although CT has far from perfect sensitivity, its negative predictive value for complicated appendicitis is high. Oxford University Press 2020-12-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7944501/ /pubmed/33688952 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zraa030 Text en © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Bom, W J
Bolmers, M D
Gans, S L
van Rossem, C C
van Geloven, A A W
Bossuyt, P M M
Stoker, J
Boermeester, M A
Discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis by ultrasound imaging, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy
title Discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis by ultrasound imaging, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy
title_full Discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis by ultrasound imaging, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy
title_fullStr Discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis by ultrasound imaging, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy
title_full_unstemmed Discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis by ultrasound imaging, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy
title_short Discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis by ultrasound imaging, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy
title_sort discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis by ultrasound imaging, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7944501/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33688952
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zraa030
work_keys_str_mv AT bomwj discriminatingcomplicatedfromuncomplicatedappendicitisbyultrasoundimagingcomputedtomographyormagneticresonanceimagingsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticaccuracy
AT bolmersmd discriminatingcomplicatedfromuncomplicatedappendicitisbyultrasoundimagingcomputedtomographyormagneticresonanceimagingsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticaccuracy
AT ganssl discriminatingcomplicatedfromuncomplicatedappendicitisbyultrasoundimagingcomputedtomographyormagneticresonanceimagingsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticaccuracy
AT vanrossemcc discriminatingcomplicatedfromuncomplicatedappendicitisbyultrasoundimagingcomputedtomographyormagneticresonanceimagingsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticaccuracy
AT vangelovenaaw discriminatingcomplicatedfromuncomplicatedappendicitisbyultrasoundimagingcomputedtomographyormagneticresonanceimagingsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticaccuracy
AT bossuytpmm discriminatingcomplicatedfromuncomplicatedappendicitisbyultrasoundimagingcomputedtomographyormagneticresonanceimagingsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticaccuracy
AT stokerj discriminatingcomplicatedfromuncomplicatedappendicitisbyultrasoundimagingcomputedtomographyormagneticresonanceimagingsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticaccuracy
AT boermeesterma discriminatingcomplicatedfromuncomplicatedappendicitisbyultrasoundimagingcomputedtomographyormagneticresonanceimagingsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticaccuracy