Interobserver variability in CT scan interpretation for suspected acute appendicitis

Emergency Medicine Journal

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 92-94

  In't Hof, K H ^a   Krestin, G P ^a   Steijerberg, E W ^a   Bonjer, H J ^a   Lange, J F ^a   Becking, W B ^b   Kazemier, G ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b Medisch Centrum Rijnmond Zuid   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACUTE APPENDICITIS; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COLITIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ENTERITIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; ILEITIS; ILEUS; IMAGE ANALYSIS; LAPAROSCOPY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREDICTIVE VALIDITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PYELONEPHRITIS; RADIOLOGIST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STOMACH PERFORATION; TERATOMA;

ACUTE DISEASE; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; APPENDICITIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TOMOGRAPHY, SPIRAL COMPUTED; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 61749095656     PISSN: 14720205     EISSN: 14720213     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/emj.2008.058990     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Flum DR, Morris A, Koepsell T, et al. Has diagnostic accuracy in appendicitis improved with time? JAMA 2001;286:1748- 53.
2. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Rattner DW, et al. Introduction of appendiceal CT: impact on negative appendectomy and appendiceal perforation rates. Ann Surg 1999;229:344-9.
3. Puylaert JB, Rutgers PH, Lalisang RI, et al. A prospective study of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of appendicitis. N Engl J Med 1987;317:666-9.
4. in 't Hof KH, van Lankeren W, Krestin GP, et al. Surgical validation of unenhanced helical computed tomography in acute appendicitis. Br J Surg 2004;91:1641-5.
5. Morse BC, Roettger RH, Kalbaugh CA, et al. Abdominal CT scanning in reproductive-age women with right lower quadrant abdominal pain: does its use reduce negative appendectomy rates and healthcare costs? Am Surg 2007;73:580-4.
6. Chooi WK, Brown JA, Zetler P, et al. Imaging of acute appendicitis and its impact on negative appendectomy and perforation rates: the St Paul's experience. Can Assoc Radiol J 2007;58:220-4.
7. Bijnen CL, Van den Broek WT, Bijnen AB, et al. Implications of removing a normal appendix. Dig Surg 2003;20:215-9.
8. Tingsted B, Johansson J, Nehez L, et al. Late abdominal complaints after appendectomy-readmissions during long-term follow-up. Dig Surg 2004;21:23-7.
9. Flum DR, Koepsell T. The clinical and economic correlates of misdiagnosed appendicitis: nationwide analysis. Arch Surg 2002;137:799-804.
10. Guss DA, Behling CA, Munassi D. Impact of abdominal helical computed tomography on the rate of negative appendicitis. J Emerg Med 2008;34:7-11.
11. Kim K, Lee CC, Song KJ, et al. The impact of helical computed tomography on the negative appendectomy rate: a multi-center comparison. J Emerg Med 2008;34:3-6.
12. Wise SW, et al. Comparative assessment of CT and sonographic techniques for appendiceal imaging. Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:933-41.
13. Pickuth D, Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Spielmann RP. Suspected acute appendicitis: is ultrasonography or computed tomography the preferred imaging technique? Eur J Surg 2000;166:315-9.
14. Albano MC, Ross GW, Ditchek JJ, et al. Resident interpretation of emergency CT scans in the evalutation of acute appendicitis. Acad Radiol 2001;8:915-8.
15. Kaidu M, Ovamatu M, Sato K, et al. Diagnostic limitations of 10 mm thickness single-slice computed tomography for patients with suspected appendicitis. Radiat Med 2008;26:63-9.
16. Hershko DD, Awad N, Fischer D, et al. Focused helical CT using rectal contrast material only as the preferred technique for the diagnosis of suspected acute appendicitis: a prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing three different techniques. Dis Colon Rectum 2007;50:1223-9.