Diagnostic Accuracy Rates of Appendicitis Scoring Systems for the Stratified Age Groups.
Journal
Emergency medicine international
ISSN: 2090-2840
Titre abrégé: Emerg Med Int
Pays: Egypt
ID NLM: 101567070
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
22
09
2022
accepted:
28
10
2022
entrez:
10
11
2022
pubmed:
11
11
2022
medline:
11
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Many scoring systems have been developed for acute appendicitis, which is the most common emergent disorder in surgical practice. Considering the physiological changes and chronic diseases occurring with advancing age, an applied scoring system may not produce the same score in similar patients in all age groups. We aimed to compare the predictive values of scoring systems in different age groups. In this prospective study, the patients operated on in our clinic with a prediagnosis of acute appendicitis between March 2020 and March 2021 were included. We divided them into three age groups as 18-45 years (group 1), 46-65 years (group 2), and >65 years (group 3). We compared the scores of the nine acute appendicitis scoring systems most commonly used in the literature for these age groups. A total of 203 patients were included in our study. The Alvarado scoring system yielded the most accurate results for group 1, whereas the Fenyo-Linberg scoring system was the most accurate system for group 2 and the Eskelinen scoring system for group 3. Age should be considered as a major parameter during the selection of the scoring system to be applied for patients with prediagnosis of acute appendicitis. Our study revealed the Alvarado and the Fenyo-Lindberg scoring systems as the most accurate systems for the differential diagnosis of appendicitis in the 18-45 and 46-65 years age groups, respectively. Although we found the Eskelinen scoring system as the most accurate one in the >65 years age group, the confidence intervals indicated that it may not be appropriate for use alone in this group.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Many scoring systems have been developed for acute appendicitis, which is the most common emergent disorder in surgical practice. Considering the physiological changes and chronic diseases occurring with advancing age, an applied scoring system may not produce the same score in similar patients in all age groups.
Objectives
UNASSIGNED
We aimed to compare the predictive values of scoring systems in different age groups.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
In this prospective study, the patients operated on in our clinic with a prediagnosis of acute appendicitis between March 2020 and March 2021 were included. We divided them into three age groups as 18-45 years (group 1), 46-65 years (group 2), and >65 years (group 3). We compared the scores of the nine acute appendicitis scoring systems most commonly used in the literature for these age groups.
Results
UNASSIGNED
A total of 203 patients were included in our study. The Alvarado scoring system yielded the most accurate results for group 1, whereas the Fenyo-Linberg scoring system was the most accurate system for group 2 and the Eskelinen scoring system for group 3.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Age should be considered as a major parameter during the selection of the scoring system to be applied for patients with prediagnosis of acute appendicitis. Our study revealed the Alvarado and the Fenyo-Lindberg scoring systems as the most accurate systems for the differential diagnosis of appendicitis in the 18-45 and 46-65 years age groups, respectively. Although we found the Eskelinen scoring system as the most accurate one in the >65 years age group, the confidence intervals indicated that it may not be appropriate for use alone in this group.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36353722
doi: 10.1155/2022/2505977
pmc: PMC9640239
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2505977Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Emre Gonullu et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
Singapore Med J. 2010 Mar;51(3):220-5
pubmed: 20428744
Rev Gastroenterol Mex (Engl Ed). 2018 Apr - Jun;83(2):112-116
pubmed: 29426650
Acad Radiol. 2010 Jul;17(7):921-7
pubmed: 20540912
ANZ J Surg. 2020 Apr;90(4):521-524
pubmed: 31840385
Arch Surg. 1999 Sep;134(9):993-6
pubmed: 10487595
Ann Coloproctol. 2017 Dec;33(6):227-231
pubmed: 29354605
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2005 Apr;390(2):164-70
pubmed: 15723233
Eur J Pain. 2017 Jul;21(6):955-964
pubmed: 28230292
Ann Emerg Med. 1986 May;15(5):557-64
pubmed: 3963537
Surg Endosc. 2004 Oct;18(10):1509-13
pubmed: 15791379
World J Surg. 2005 Sep;29(9):1151-6, discussion 1157
pubmed: 16088420
Sov Zdravookhr. 1977;(10):40-4
pubmed: 929252
J Surg Res. 2014 Dec;192(2):368-374.e1
pubmed: 25303785
Psychosom Med. 2001 Mar-Apr;63(2):316-23
pubmed: 11292281
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2008 Feb;14(2):236-41
pubmed: 17973298
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2019;51(4):283-288
pubmed: 31434468
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2020 Sep 24;59:138-142
pubmed: 33024555
Euroasian J Hepatogastroenterol. 2015 Jul-Dec;5(2):67-73
pubmed: 29201695
World J Emerg Surg. 2020 Apr 15;15(1):27
pubmed: 32295644
Korean J Gastroenterol. 2008 Jul;52(1):27-31
pubmed: 19077488
World J Surg. 2008 Aug;32(8):1843-9
pubmed: 18553045
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2004 Jun;389(3):213-8
pubmed: 14624293
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2019 Jun;45(3):411-416
pubmed: 29128890
Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2018 Nov;24(6):545-551
pubmed: 30516254
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2014 Oct;96(7):517-20
pubmed: 25245730
J Surg Res. 2018 Jan;221:77-83
pubmed: 29229156
Scand J Gastroenterol. 1983 Mar;18(2):161-3
pubmed: 6369508
Updates Surg. 2022 Jun;74(3):1035-1042
pubmed: 35446009
World J Emerg Surg. 2020 May 18;15(1):34
pubmed: 32423408
World J Emerg Surg. 2016 Oct 6;11:49
pubmed: 27713763
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Nov;213(5):W218-W227
pubmed: 31414891
Br J Surg. 2021 Jan 27;108(1):e31-e32
pubmed: 33640949