Comparison of physical examination, laboratory and radiologic findings in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

IF 0.9
Northern clinics of Istanbul Pub Date : 2026-04-30 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.14744/nci.2026.99975
Ozgur Ekinci, Furkan Kilic, Muhammet Ali Aydemir, Ihsan Metin Leblebici, Cem Ilgın Erol, Ayse Nur Toksoz Yildirim, Tunc Eren, Hasan Guclu, Orhan Alimoglu
{"title":"Comparison of physical examination, laboratory and radiologic findings in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.","authors":"Ozgur Ekinci, Furkan Kilic, Muhammet Ali Aydemir, Ihsan Metin Leblebici, Cem Ilgın Erol, Ayse Nur Toksoz Yildirim, Tunc Eren, Hasan Guclu, Orhan Alimoglu","doi":"10.14744/nci.2026.99975","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of the present study was to compare the diagnostic performance of physical examination, routinely used laboratory markers, and radiological imaging modalities in adult patients with suspected acute appendicitis (AA), and to evaluate the relative contribution of each diagnostic tool under real-world clinical conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective observational study included 665 consecutive adult patients who underwent appendectomy for AA. Preoperative laboratory parameters, including white blood cell count, C-reactive protein, neutrophil count, neutrophil percentage, total bilirubin, and indirect bilirubin, were recorded. Radiological findings from computed tomography and ultrasonography were documented. Physical examinations were independently performed without access to laboratory or imaging results by both a general surgery resident and a specialist general surgeon. Physical examination findings were categorized as compatible, suspicious, or incompatible with AA. Histopathological examination of all specimens served as the reference standard.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 665 patients, 242 (36.4%) were women, and 423 (63.6%) were men, with a mean age of 34.9±14.2 years. The negative appendectomy rate was 5.8%. Resident physical examination demonstrated the highest sensitivity (95.2%) and overall diagnostic accuracy (88.9%). Among laboratory markers, neutrophil count showed high sensitivity (87.9%), while total and indirect bilirubin demonstrated the highest specificity (89.7% and 94.7%, respectively). Computed tomography achieved a sensitivity of 85.7%, whereas ultrasonography showed lower diagnostic performance, particularly in specificity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Physical examination remains a highly effective diagnostic tool for AA when performed systematically and should be integrated with laboratory and selective imaging rather than replaced by them.</p>","PeriodicalId":94347,"journal":{"name":"Northern clinics of Istanbul","volume":"13 2","pages":"214-220"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13181555/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Northern clinics of Istanbul","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14744/nci.2026.99975","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the present study was to compare the diagnostic performance of physical examination, routinely used laboratory markers, and radiological imaging modalities in adult patients with suspected acute appendicitis (AA), and to evaluate the relative contribution of each diagnostic tool under real-world clinical conditions.

Methods: This prospective observational study included 665 consecutive adult patients who underwent appendectomy for AA. Preoperative laboratory parameters, including white blood cell count, C-reactive protein, neutrophil count, neutrophil percentage, total bilirubin, and indirect bilirubin, were recorded. Radiological findings from computed tomography and ultrasonography were documented. Physical examinations were independently performed without access to laboratory or imaging results by both a general surgery resident and a specialist general surgeon. Physical examination findings were categorized as compatible, suspicious, or incompatible with AA. Histopathological examination of all specimens served as the reference standard.

Results: Of the 665 patients, 242 (36.4%) were women, and 423 (63.6%) were men, with a mean age of 34.9±14.2 years. The negative appendectomy rate was 5.8%. Resident physical examination demonstrated the highest sensitivity (95.2%) and overall diagnostic accuracy (88.9%). Among laboratory markers, neutrophil count showed high sensitivity (87.9%), while total and indirect bilirubin demonstrated the highest specificity (89.7% and 94.7%, respectively). Computed tomography achieved a sensitivity of 85.7%, whereas ultrasonography showed lower diagnostic performance, particularly in specificity.

Conclusion: Physical examination remains a highly effective diagnostic tool for AA when performed systematically and should be integrated with laboratory and selective imaging rather than replaced by them.

急性阑尾炎的体格检查、实验室检查和影像学检查的比较。
目的:本研究的目的是比较体格检查、常规实验室标记物和放射成像方式对疑似急性阑尾炎(AA)成年患者的诊断效果,并评估每种诊断工具在真实临床条件下的相对贡献。方法:本前瞻性观察研究纳入665例连续行阑尾切除术的AA成年患者。记录术前实验室参数,包括白细胞计数、c反应蛋白、中性粒细胞计数、中性粒细胞百分比、总胆红素、间接胆红素。记录了计算机断层扫描和超声检查的放射表现。体格检查由普通外科住院医师和专科普通外科医生独立进行,没有获得实验室或成像结果。体格检查结果分为与AA相容、可疑或不相容。所有标本的组织病理学检查作为参考标准。结果:665例患者中,女性242例(36.4%),男性423例(63.6%),平均年龄34.9±14.2岁。阑尾切除术阴性率为5.8%。住院体检表现出最高的敏感性(95.2%)和总体诊断准确性(88.9%)。在实验室标志物中,中性粒细胞计数灵敏度高(87.9%),而总胆红素和间接胆红素的特异性最高(分别为89.7%和94.7%)。计算机断层扫描的灵敏度为85.7%,而超声检查的诊断性能较低,特别是在特异性方面。结论:体格检查仍然是诊断AA的有效手段,但应与实验室和选择性影像学相结合,而不应被其取代。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书