{"title":"Evaluation of modified Alvarado scoring system and RIPASA scoring system as diagnostic tools of acute appendicitis","authors":"Abhishek Kumar, S. Snehlata","doi":"10.17511/IJOSO.2020.I01.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical condition presented in emergency departments worldwide. Clinical scoring systems, such as the Alvarado and modified Alvarado scoring systems, were developed with the goal of reducing the negative appendectomy rate to 5%–10%. The Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) scoring system was established in 2008 specifically for Asian populations. The aim of this study was to compare the modified Alvarado with the RIPASA scoring system in Kuwait population. \nMethods: This study included 90 patients who underwent appendectomies and were documented as having “acute appendicitis” or “abdominal pain” in the operating theatre register from June 2014 to May 2018. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), diagnostic accuracy, predicted negative appendectomy and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the modified Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems were derived using SPSS statistical software. \nResults: A total of 68 patients were included in this study according to our criteria. The cut-off threshold point of the modified Alvarado score was set at 7.0, which yielded a sensitivity of 82.8% and a specificity of 56%. The PPV was 89.3% and the NPV was 42.4%. The cut-off threshold point of the RIPASA score was set at 7.5, which yielded a 94.5% sensitivity and an 88% specificity. The PPV was 97.2% and the NPV was 78.5%. The predicted negative appendectomy rates were 10.7% and 2.2% for the modified Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems, respectively. The negative appendectomy rate decreased significantly, from 18.4% to 10.7% for the modified Alvarado, and to 2.2% for the RIPASA scoring system, which was a significant difference (P<0.001) for both scoring systems. \nConclusion: Based on the results of this study, the RIPASA score is a simple scoring system with better sensitivity and specificity than the modified Alvarado scoring system in Asian populations. It consists of 14 clinical parameters that can be obtained from a good patient history, clinical examination and laboratory investigations. The RIPASA scoring system is more accurate and specific than the modified Alvarado scoring system for Kuwait population.","PeriodicalId":267909,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Update: International Journal of Surgery and Orthopedics","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Update: International Journal of Surgery and Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17511/IJOSO.2020.I01.03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6
Abstract
Background: Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical condition presented in emergency departments worldwide. Clinical scoring systems, such as the Alvarado and modified Alvarado scoring systems, were developed with the goal of reducing the negative appendectomy rate to 5%–10%. The Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) scoring system was established in 2008 specifically for Asian populations. The aim of this study was to compare the modified Alvarado with the RIPASA scoring system in Kuwait population.
Methods: This study included 90 patients who underwent appendectomies and were documented as having “acute appendicitis” or “abdominal pain” in the operating theatre register from June 2014 to May 2018. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), diagnostic accuracy, predicted negative appendectomy and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the modified Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems were derived using SPSS statistical software.
Results: A total of 68 patients were included in this study according to our criteria. The cut-off threshold point of the modified Alvarado score was set at 7.0, which yielded a sensitivity of 82.8% and a specificity of 56%. The PPV was 89.3% and the NPV was 42.4%. The cut-off threshold point of the RIPASA score was set at 7.5, which yielded a 94.5% sensitivity and an 88% specificity. The PPV was 97.2% and the NPV was 78.5%. The predicted negative appendectomy rates were 10.7% and 2.2% for the modified Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems, respectively. The negative appendectomy rate decreased significantly, from 18.4% to 10.7% for the modified Alvarado, and to 2.2% for the RIPASA scoring system, which was a significant difference (P<0.001) for both scoring systems.
Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, the RIPASA score is a simple scoring system with better sensitivity and specificity than the modified Alvarado scoring system in Asian populations. It consists of 14 clinical parameters that can be obtained from a good patient history, clinical examination and laboratory investigations. The RIPASA scoring system is more accurate and specific than the modified Alvarado scoring system for Kuwait population.
背景:急性阑尾炎是全世界急诊科最常见的外科疾病。临床评分系统,如Alvarado和改进的Alvarado评分系统,开发的目标是将阑尾切除术阴性率降低到5%-10%。Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha阑尾炎(RIPASA)评分系统于2008年专门为亚洲人群建立。本研究的目的是比较科威特人群中改进的Alvarado和RIPASA评分系统。方法:本研究纳入了2014年6月至2018年5月在手术室登记的90例阑尾切除术患者,记录为“急性阑尾炎”或“腹痛”。采用SPSS统计软件得出改进的Alvarado和RIPASA评分系统的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值(NPV)、诊断准确率、预测阴性阑尾切除及受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线。结果:根据我们的标准,共有68例患者纳入本研究。修改后的Alvarado评分的截止阈值为7.0,敏感性为82.8%,特异性为56%。PPV为89.3%,NPV为42.4%。RIPASA评分的截止阈值为7.5,敏感性为94.5%,特异性为88%。PPV为97.2%,NPV为78.5%。改良的Alvarado和RIPASA评分系统预测阑尾切除术阴性率分别为10.7%和2.2%。阴性阑尾切除术率显著下降,改良Alvarado评分系统从18.4%降至10.7%,RIPASA评分系统降至2.2%,两种评分系统差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。结论:基于本研究结果,RIPASA评分是一种简单的评分系统,在亚洲人群中比改良的Alvarado评分系统具有更好的敏感性和特异性。它由14个临床参数组成,这些参数可以从良好的患者病史、临床检查和实验室调查中获得。RIPASA评分系统比科威特人口改良的Alvarado评分系统更准确和具体。