A simple clinical decision rule to rule out appendicitis in patients with nondiagnostic ultrasound results

Academic Emergency Medicine

Volumn 21, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 487-496

  Leeuwenburgh, Marjolein M N ^a   Stockmann, Hein B A C ^b   Bouma, Wim H ^c   Houdijk, Alexander P J ^d   Verhagen, Matthijs F ^e   Vrouenraets, Bart ^f   Cobben, Lodewijk P J ^g   Bossuyt, Patrick M M ^a   Stoker, Jaap ^a   Boermeester, Marja A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b Department of Orthopaedic Surgery   (Netherlands)

^c GELRE HOSPITALS   (Netherlands)

^d Medical Centre Alkmaar   (Netherlands)

^e ST ANTONIUS HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^f ONZE LIEVE VROUWE GASTHUIS   (Netherlands)

^g MEDICAL CENTER HAAGLANDEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

C REACTIVE PROTEIN;

ACUTE APPENDICITIS; ADULT; APPENDICITIS; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL DECISION RULE; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL FEATURE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; ECHOGRAPHY; EMERGENCY WARD; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; LEUKOCYTE COUNT; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIGRATION; MULTICENTER STUDY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SAFETY; PERIOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; VOMITING;

ABDOMINAL PAIN; ACUTE DISEASE; ADULT; APPENDICITIS; C-REACTIVE PROTEIN; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; EMERGENCY SERVICE, HOSPITAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEUKOCYTE COUNT; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84901002644     PISSN: 10696563     EISSN: 15532712     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/acem.12374     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Drake FT, Florence MG, Johnson MG, et al. Progress in the diagnosis of appendicitis: a report from Washington State's Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program. Ann Surg 2012; 256: 586-94.
2. Raman SS, Osuagwu FC, Kadell B, Cryer H, Sayre J, Lu DSK,. Effect of CT on false positive diagnosis of appendicitis and perforation. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 972-3.
3. Coursey CA, Nelson RC, Patel MB, et al. Making the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: do more preoperative CT scans mean fewer negative appendectomies? A 10-year study. Radiology 2010; 254: 460-8.
4. Wagner PL, Eachempati SR, Soe K, Pieracci FM, Shou J, Barie PS,. Defining the current negative appendectomy rate: for whom is preoperative computed tomography making an impact? Surgery 2008; 144: 276-82.
5. Rothrock SG, Green SM, Dobson M, Colucciello SA, Simmons CM,. Misdiagnosis of appendicitis in nonpregnant women of childbearing age. J Emerg Med 1995; 13: 1-8.
6. Cobben LP, Bakker OJ, Puylaert JB, Kingma LM, Blickman JG,. Imaging of patients with clinically suspected appendicitis in the Netherlands: conclusions of a survey. Br J Radiol 2009; 82: 482-5.
7. Wagner JM, McKinney WP, Carpenter JL,. Does this patient have appendicitis? JAMA 1996; 276: 1589-94.
8. Bundy DG, Byerley JS, Liles EA, Perrin EM, Katznelson J, Rice HE,. Does this child have appendicitis? JAMA 2007; 298: 438-51.
9. Laméris W, van Randen A, Go PM, et al. Single and combined diagnostic value of clinical features and laboratory tests in acute appendicitis. Acad Emerg Med 2009; 16: 835-42.
10. Lee CC, Golub R, Singer AJ, Levinson H,. Routine versus selective abdominal evaluation of right lower quadrant pain: a randomized controlled trial. Acad Emerg Med 2007; 14: 117-22.
11. Walker S, Haun W, Clark J, McMillin K, Zeren F, Gilliland T,. The value of limited computed tomography with rectal contrast in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Am J Surg 2000; 180: 450-4.
12. Kim K, Kim YH, Kim SY, et al. Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 1596-605.
13. Laméris W, van Randen A, van Es HW, et al. Imaging strategies for detection of urgent conditions in patients with acute abdominal pain: diagnostic accuracy study. BMJ 2009; 338: b2431.
14. Bakker OJ, Go PM, Puylaert JB, Kazemier G, Heij HA,. [Guideline on diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis: imaging prior to appendectomy is recommended] (article in Dutch). Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2010; 154: A303.
15. Herliczek TW, Swenson DW. Mayo-Smith WW,. Utility of MRI after inconclusive ultrasound in pediatric patients with suspected appendicitis: retrospective review of 60 consecutive patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 200: 969-73.
16. Thieme ME, Leeuwenburgh MM, Valdehueza ZD, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and patient acceptance of MRI in children with suspected appendicitis. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 630-7.
17. Basaran A, Basaran M,. Diagnosis of acute appendicitis during pregnancy. A systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2009; 64: 481-8.
18. Leeuwenburgh MM, Wiarda BM, Wiezer MJ, et al. A comparison of imaging strategies with conditional contrast enhanced CT and non-contrast MRI in patients with suspected appendicitis: a multicenter diagnostic performance study. Radiology 2013; 268: 135-43.
19. Leeuwenburgh MM, Laméris W, van Randen A, Bossuyt PM, Boermeester MA, Stoker J,. Optimizing imaging in suspected appendicitis (OPTIMAP-study): a multicenter diagnostic accuracy study of MRI in patients with suspected acute appendicitis. BMC Emerg Med 2010; 10: 19.
20. 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.
21. Andersson M, Andersson RE,. The appendicitis inflammatory response score: a tool for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis that outperforms the Alvarado score. World J Surg 2008; 32: 1843-9.
22. Pines JM, Everett WW,. Epidemiology and statistics. In: Evidence-based Emergency Care: Diagnostic Testing & Clinical Decision Rules. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: BMJ Books, 2008, pp 16-31.
23. Andersson REB,. Meta-analysis of the clinical and laboratory diagnosis of appendicitis. Br J Surg 2004; 91: 28-37.
24. Toorenvliet BR, Wiersma F, Bakker RF, Merkus JW, Breslau PJ, Hamming JF,. Routine ultrasound and limited computed tomography for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. World J Surg 2010; 34: 2278-85.
25. Van Breda Vriesman AC, Kole BJ, Puylaert JB,. Effect of ultrasonography and optional computed tomography on the outcome of appendectomy. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: 2278-82.
26. Andersson RE, Hugander AP, Ghazi SH, et al. Diagnostic value of disease history, clinical presentation, and inflammatory parameters of appendicitis. World J Surg 1999; 23: 133-40.
27. Hale DA, Molloy M, Pearl RH, Schutt DC, Jaques DP,. Appendectomy: a contemporary appraisal. Ann Surg 1997; 225: 252-61.
28. Andersson RE,. The natural history and traditional management of appendicitis revisited: spontaneous resolution and predominance of prehospital perforations imply that a correct diagnosis is more important than an early diagnosis. World J Surg 2007; 31: 86-92.
29. De Castro SM, Ünlü C, Steller EP, van Wagensveld BA, Vrouenraets BC,. Evaluation of the appendicitis inflammatory response score for patients with acute appendicitis. World J Surg 2012; 36: 1540-5.
30. Poortman P, Oostvogel HJ, Bosma E, et al. Improving diagnosis of acute appendicitis: results of a diagnostic pathway with standard use of ultrasonography followed by selective use of CT. J Am Coll Surg 2009; 208: 434-41.
31. Van Randen A, Laméris W, van Es HW, et al. A comparison of the accuracy of ultrasound and computed tomography in common diagnoses causing acute abdominal pain. Eur Radiol 2011; 21: 1535-45.
32. Franke C, Böhner H, Yang Q, Ohmann C, Röher HD,. Ultrasonography for diagnosis of acute appendicitis: results of a prospective multicenter trial. Acute Abdominal Pain Study Group. World J Surg 1999; 23: 141-6.
33. Kouamé N, N'goan-Domoua AM, N'dri KJ, et al. The diagnostic value of indirect ultrasound signs during acute adult appendicitis. Diagn Interv Imaging 2012; 93: e24-8.