Acute Appendicitis: A Meta-Analysis of the Diagnostic Accuracy of US, CT, and MRI as Second-Line Imaging Tests after an Initial US

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios of US, CT, and MRI as second-line imaging modalities after initial US for assessing acute appendicitis in children and adults. Materials and Methods A literature search was conducted in Medline and Embase to identify articles that used surgery or histopathologic examination alone or in combination with clinical follow-up or chart review to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of second-line imaging modalities. The quality of articles was assessed by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 and the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy tools. Results For studies of children, the number of studies and patients were as follows: US, six studies and 548 patients; CT, nine studies and 1498 patients; MRI, five studies and 287 patients. For studies of adults, the number of studies and patients were as follows: US, three studies and 169 patients; CT, 11 studies and 1027 patients; MRI, six studies and 427 patients. Pooled sensitivities and specificities of second-line US for diagnosis of appendicitis in children were 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 83.8%, 95.5%) and 95.2% (95% CI: 91.8%, 97.3%), respectively; and in adults, the pooled sensitivities and specificities were 83.1% (95% CI: 70.3%, 91.1%) and 90.9% (95% CI: 59.3%, 98.6%), respectively. Regarding second-line CT in children, the pooled sensitivities and specificities were 96.2% (95% CI: 93.2%, 97.8%) and 94.6% (95% CI: 92.8%, 95.9%); and in adults, the pooled sensitivities and specificities were 89.9% (95% CI: 85.4%, 93.2%) and 93.6% (95% CI: 91.2%, 95.3%), respectively. Regarding second-line MRI in children, pooled sensitivities and specificities were 97.4% (95% CI: 85.8%, 100%) and 97.1% (95% CI: 92.1%, 99.0%); and in adults, the pooled sensitivities and specificities were 89.9% (95% CI: 84.8%, 93.5%) and 93.6% (95% CI: 90.9%, 95.5%), respectively. Conclusion Second-line US, CT, and MRI have comparable and high accuracy in helping to diagnose appendicitis in children and adults, including pregnant women. All three modalities may be valid as second-line imaging in a clinical imaging pathway for diagnosis and management of appendicitis.

Related collections

Most cited references 77

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

US or CT for Diagnosis of Appendicitis in Children and Adults? A Meta-Analysis.

Joseph Beyene, Suzanne Schuh, Tobias P. Dick … (2006)

To perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of ultrasonography (US) and computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of appendicitis in pediatric and adult populations. Medical literature (from 1986 to 2004) was searched for articles on studies that used US, CT, or both as diagnostic tests for appendicitis in children (26 studies, 9356 patients) or adults (31 studies, 4341 patients). Prospective and retrospective studies were included if they separately reported the rate of true-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative diagnoses of appendicitis from US and CT findings compared with the positive and negative rates of appendicitis at surgery or follow-up. Clinical variables, technical factors, and test performance were extracted. Three readers assessed the quality of studies. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of appendicitis in children were 88% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 86%, 90%) and 94% (95% CI: 92%, 95%), respectively, for US studies and 94% (95% CI: 92%, 97%) and 95% (95% CI: 94%, 97%), respectively, for CT studies. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis in adults were 83% (95% CI: 78%, 87%) and 93% (95% CI: 90%, 96%), respectively, for US studies and 94% (95% CI: 92%, 95%) and 94% (95% CI: 94%, 96%), respectively, for CT studies. From the diagnostic performance perspective, CT had a significantly higher sensitivity than did US in studies of children and adults; from the safety perspective, however, one should consider the radiation associated with CT, especially in children. (c) RSNA, 2006.

0 comments Cited 91 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A systematic review classifies sources of bias and variation in diagnostic test accuracy studies.

Anne Rutjes, Michael F. Whiting, Susan Mallett … (2013)

To classify the sources of bias and variation and to provide an updated summary of the evidence of the effects of each source of bias and variation. We conducted a systematic review of studies of any design with the main objective of addressing bias or variation in the results of diagnostic accuracy studies. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, the Cochrane Methodology Register, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) from 2001 to October 2011. Citation searches based on three key papers were conducted, and studies from our previous review (search to 2001) were eligible. One reviewer extracted data on the study design, objective, sources of bias and/or variation, and results. A second reviewer checked the extraction. We summarized the number of studies providing evidence of an effect arising from each source of bias and variation on the estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy. We found consistent evidence for the effects of case-control design, observer variability, availability of clinical information, reference standard, partial and differential verification bias, demographic features, and disease prevalence and severity. Effects were generally stronger for sensitivity than for specificity. Evidence for other sources of bias and variation was limited. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 87 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Acute appendicitis: meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of CT and graded compression US related to prevalence of disease.

Adrienne Monteath-van Dok, Aeilko Zwinderman, Dirk T Ubbink … (2008)

This study was a head-to-head comparison of graded compression ultrasonography (US) and computed tomography (CT) in helping diagnose acute appendicitis with an emphasis on diagnostic value at different disease prevalences, commonly occurring in various hospital settings. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases were searched from January 1966 to February 2006. Prospective trials were selected if they (a) compared graded compression US and CT in the same patient population; (b) included more than 10 patients, otherwise, the study was considered a case report; (c) evaluated mainly adults or adolescents; (d) used surgery and/or clinical follow-up as reference standard; and (e) reported data to calculate 2 x 2 contingency tables for graded compression US and CT. Estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) for US and CT were calculated. Posttest probabilities after CT and US were calculated for various clinically relevant prevalences. Six studies were included, evaluating 671 patients (mean age range, 26-38 years); prevalence of acute appendicitis was 50% (range, 13%-77%). Positive LR was 9.29 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.9, 12.6) for CT and 4.50 (95% CI: 3.0, 6.7; P = .011) for US, yielding posttest probabilities for positive tests of 90% and 82%, respectively. Negative LR was 0.10 (95% CI: 0.06, 0.17) for CT and 0.27 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.43) for US (P = .013), resulting in posttest probabilities of 9% and 21%, respectively. Posttest probabilities for positive tests were markedly decreased at lower prevalences. In head-to-head comparison studies of diagnostic imaging, CT had a better test performance than did graded compression US in diagnosing appendicitis. Ignoring the relationship between prevalence (pretest probability) and diagnostic value may lead to an inaccurate estimation of diagnostic performance. (c) RSNA, 2008.