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

Radiology

Volumn 249, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 97-106

  Randen, Adriennevan ^a   Bipat, Shandra ^a   Zwinderman, Aeilko H ^a   Ubbink, Dirk T ^a   Stoker, Jaap ^a   Boermeester, Marja A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACUTE APPENDICITIS; ARTICLE; CLINICAL FEATURE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ECHOGRAPHY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; META ANALYSIS; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UNITED STATES; ACUTE DISEASE; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; APPENDICITIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PROBABILITY;

ACUTE DISEASE; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; APPENDICITIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PREVALENCE; PROBABILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

EID: 53749101002     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2483071652     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Addiss DG, Shaffer N, Fowler BS, Tauxe RV. The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. Am J Epidemiol 1990;132:910-925.
2. Wagner JM, McKinney WP, Carpenter JL. Does this patient have appendicitis? JAMA 1996;276:1589-1594.
3. Birnbaum BA, Wilson SR. Appendicitis at the millennium. Radiology 2000;215:337-348.
4. Neumayer L, Kennedy A. Imaging in appendicitis: a review with special emphasis on the treatment of women. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:1404-1409.
5. Puylaert JB, Rutgers PH, Lalisang RI, et al. A prospective study of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of appendicitis. N Engl J Med 1987;317:666-669.
6. Orr RK, Porter D, Hartman D. Ultrasonog- raphy to evaluate adults for appendicitis: decision making based on meta-analysis and probabilistic reasoning. Acad Emerg Med 1995;2:644-650.
7. Doria AS, Moineddin R, Kellenberger CJ, et al. US or CT for diagnosis of appendicitis in children and adults? a meta-analysis. Radiology 2006;241:83-94.
8. Terasawa T, Blackmore CC, Bent S, Kohlwes RJ. Systematic review: computed tomography and ultrasonography to detect acute appendicitis in adults and adolescents. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:537-546.
9. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement- Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354:1896-1900.
10. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a toolfor the qualityassessment ofstudies ofdiag- nostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC MedRes Methodol2003;3:25.
11. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:982-990.
12. Lee SL, Walsh AJ, Ho HS. Computed tomography and ultrasonography do not improve and may delay the diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis. Arch Surg 2001;136:556-562.
13. Rosengren D, Brown AF, Chu K. Radiological imaging to improve the emergency department diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Emerg Med Australas 2004;16:410-416.
14. van Breda Vriesman AC, Kole BJ, Puylaert JB. Effect of ultrasonography and optional computed tomography on the outcome ofap- pendectomy. Eur Radiol 2003;13:2278-2282.
15. Horton MD, Counter SF, Florence MG, Hart MJ. A prospective trial of computed tomography and ultrasonography for diagnosing appendicitis in the atypical patient. Am J Surg 2000;179:379-381.
16. Tsai SS, CoughlinBF, HampfFE, MunshiIA, Wolfe JM. Diagnosing appendicitis with CT and ultrasound using prospective patient stratification by body mass index. Emerg Radiol 2001;8:267-271.
17. Stroman DL, Bayouth CV, Kuhn JA, et al. The role of computed tomography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Am J Surg 1999;178:485-489.
18. Styrud J, Josephson T, Eriksson S. Reducing negative appendectomy: evaluation of ultra- sonography and computer tomography in acute appendicitis. Int J Qual Health Care 2000;12:65-68.
19. Wilson EB, Cole JC, Nipper ML, Cooney DR, Smith RW. Computed tomography and ultra- sonography in the diagnosis of appendicitis: when are they indicated? Arch Surg 2001;136:670-675.
20. Balthazar EJ, Birnbaum BA, Yee J, Megibow AJ, Roshkow J, Gray C. Acute appendicitis: CT and US correlation in 100 patients. Radiology 1994;190:31-35.
21. Kan JH, Fines BP, Funaki B. Conventional and hydrocolonic US of the appendix with CT correlation performed by on-call radiology residents. Acad Radiol 2001;8:1208- 1214.
22. Keyzer C, Zalcman M, De Maertelaer V, et al. Comparison of US and unenhanced multi-detector row CT in patients suspected of having acute appendicitis. Radiology 2005;236:527-534.
23. Pickuth D, Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Spielmann RP. Suspected acute appendicitis: is ultra- sonography or computed tomography the preferred imaging technique? Eur J Surg 2000;166:315-319.
24. Poortman P, Lohle PN, Schoemaker CM, et al. Comparison of CT and sonography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: a blinded prospective study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:1355-1359.
25. Wise SW, Labuski MR, Kasales CJ, et al. Comparative assessment of CT and sono- graphic techniques for appendiceal imaging. AJR AmJ Roentgenol 2001;176:933-941.
26. Ahn SH, Mayo-Smith WW, Murphy BL, Reinert SE, Cronan JJ. Acute nontraumatic abdominal pain in adult patients: abdominal radiography compared with CT evaluation. Radiology 2002;225:159-164.
27. Allemann F, Cassina P, Rothlin M, Largiader F. Ultrasound scans done by surgeons for patients with acute abdominal pain: a prospective study. Eur J Surg 1999;165:966- 970.
28. Kizer KW, Vassar MJ. Emergency department diagnosis of abdominal disorders in the elderly. Am J Emerg Med 1998;16:357-362.
29. MacKersie AB, Lane MJ, Gerhardt RT, et al. Nontraumatic acute abdominal pain: unen- hanced helical CT compared with three-view acute abdominal series. Radiology 2005;237:114-122.
30. Ng CS, Watson CJ, Palmer CR, et al. Evaluation of early abdominopelvic computed tomography in patients with acute abdominal pain of unknown cause: prospective randomised study. BMJ 2002;325:1387.
31. Powers RD, Guertler AT. Abdominal pain in the ED: stability and change over 20 years. Am J Emerg Med 1995;13:301-303.
32. Rosen MP, Siewert B, Sands DZ, Bromberg R, Edlow J, Raptopoulos V. Value of abdominal CT in the emergency department for patients with abdominal pain. Eur Radiol 2003;13:418-424.
33. Roth C, Tello R, Sutherland K, Ptak T. Prediction rule for etiology of vague abdominal pain in the emergency room: utility for imaging triage. Invest Radiol 2002;37:552-556.
34. Anderson BA, Salem L, Flum DR. A systematic reviewofwhetheroralcontrastisnecesary for the computed tomography diagnosis of appendicitis in adults. Am J Surg 2005;190:474-478.
35. Carrico CW, Fenton LZ, Taylor GA, DiFiore JW, Soprano JV. Impact of sonography on the diagnosis and treatment of acute lower abdominal pain in children and young adults. AJR Am J Roentgenol1999;172:513-516.
36. Chou YH, Chiou HJ, Tiu CM, et al. Sonogra- phy of acute right side colonic diverticulitis. Am J Surg 2001;181:122-127.
37. Dhillon S, Halligan S, Goh V, Matravers P, Chambers A, Remedios D. The therapeutic impact of abdominal ultrasound in patients with acute abdominal symptoms. Clin Radiol 2002;57:268-271.
38. Kamel IR, Goldberg SN, Keogan MT, Rosen MP, Raptopoulos V. Right lower quadrant pain and suspected appendicitis: nonfocused appendiceal CT-review of 100 cases. Radiology 2000;217:159-163.
39. Rao PM, Feltmate CM, Rhea JT, Schulick AH, Novelline RA. Helical computed tomography in differentiating appendicitis and acute gynecologic conditions. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:417-421.
40. Tsushima Y, Yamada S, Aoki J, Motojima T, Endo K. Effect of contrast-enhanced computed tomography on diagnosis and management of acute abdomen in adults. Clin Radiol 2002;57:507-513.
41. Eskelinen M, Ikonen J, Lipponen P. Acute appendicitis in patients over the age of 65 years: comparison of clinical and computer based decision making. Int J Biomed Comput 1994;36:239-249.
42. Esses D, Birnbaum A, Bijur P, Shah S, Gleyzer A, Gallagher EJ. Ability of CT to alter decision making in elderly patients with acute abdominal pain. Am J Emerg Med 2004;22:270-272.
43. Moons KG, van Es GA, Deckers JW, Habbema JD, Grobbee DE. Limitations of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, and Bayes' theorem in assessing diagnostic probabilities: a clinical example. Epidemiology 1997;8:12-17.
44. Daly CP, Cohan RH, Francis IR, Caoili EM, Ellis JH, Nan B. Incidence of acute appendicitis in patients with equivocal CT findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1813-1820.
45. Keyzer C, Tack D, de Maertelaer V, Bohy P, Gevenois PA, Van Gansbeke D. Acute appendicitis: comparison of low-dose and standard-dose unenhanced multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2004;232:164-172.
46. Weltman DI, Yu J, Krumenacker J Jr, Huang S, Moh P. Diagnosis of acute appendicitis: comparison of 5- and 10-mm CT sections in the same patient. Radiology 2000;216:172-177.
47. Birchard KR, Brown MA, Hyslop WB, Firat Z, Semelka RC. MRI of acute abdominal and pelvic pain in pregnant patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol2005;184:452- 458.
48. Cobben LP, Groot I, Haans L, Blickman JG, Puylaert J. MRI for clinically suspected appendicitis during pregnancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol2004;183:671-675.
49. Oto A, Ernst RD, Shah R, et al. Right-lower-quadrant pain and suspected appendicitis in pregnant women: evaluation with MR imag- ing-initial experience. Radiology 2005;234:445-451.
50. 50.Pedrosa I, Levine D, Eyvazzadeh AD, Siewert B, Ngo L, Rofsky NM. MR imaging evaluation of acute appendicitis in pregnancy. Radiology 2006;238:891-899.
51. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies ofdiagnostic tests. JAMA 1999;282: 1061-1066.
52. Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Di NM, Smidt N, van Rijn JC, Bossuyt PM. Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. CMAJ 2006;174:469-476.
53. Pham B, Platt R, McAuley L, Klassen TP, Moher D. Is there a "best" way to detect and minimize publication bias? an empirical evaluation. EvalHealthProf2001;24:109-125.
54. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. AJR Am J Roentgenol2003;181:51-55.