评估急性阑尾炎的RIPASA与Alvarado评分:一项前瞻性研究。

IF 0.5 Q4 SURGERY
Turkish Journal of Surgery Pub Date : 2023-09-27 eCollection Date: 2023-09-01 DOI:10.47717/turkjsurg.2023.6124
Syed Shams Ud Din, Inayat Ullah Baig, Mirza Tassawar Hussain, Abdullah Sadiq, Talha Humayun, Umair Ahmad, Aqsa Syed
{"title":"评估急性阑尾炎的RIPASA与Alvarado评分:一项前瞻性研究。","authors":"Syed Shams Ud Din, Inayat Ullah Baig, Mirza Tassawar Hussain, Abdullah Sadiq, Talha Humayun, Umair Ahmad, Aqsa Syed","doi":"10.47717/turkjsurg.2023.6124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to compare Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) and Alvarado scoring to accurately identify acute appendicitis.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A cross-sectional prospective study was carried out in the department of surgery. Patients were enrolled and scored using RIPASA and Alvarado scoring systems. Appendectomy was done, and the specimen was sent for histopathology examination, which was used as the gold standard for diagnosis. Among 400 recruits, 11 patients were lost to follow-up, giving us a sample size of 389 patients. The cut-off value for RIPASA and Alvarado scores was 7.5 and 7.0, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy in diagnosing acute appendicitis of both scores were analyzed using SPSS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 389 patients, 256 (66%) were males, and 277 (71%) were under the age of 40 years. RIPASA was more than 7.5 in 345 cases, while Alvarado was more than 7.0 in 261 patients. RIPASA score had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 95.8%, 87.9%, 98.9%, and 65.9%, respectively. In contrast, the ALVARADO score was 71.1% sensitive and 75.8% specific. RIPASA had a diagnostic accuracy of 95.12%, while Alvarado was only 71.46% accurate in diagnosing acute appendicitis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to the Alvarado scoring system, RIPASA is a better tool in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for diagnosing acute appendicitis.</p>","PeriodicalId":23374,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Surgery","volume":"39 3","pages":"231-236"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10696447/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"RIPASA versus Alvarado score in the assessment of acute appendicitis: A prospective study.\",\"authors\":\"Syed Shams Ud Din, Inayat Ullah Baig, Mirza Tassawar Hussain, Abdullah Sadiq, Talha Humayun, Umair Ahmad, Aqsa Syed\",\"doi\":\"10.47717/turkjsurg.2023.6124\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to compare Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) and Alvarado scoring to accurately identify acute appendicitis.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A cross-sectional prospective study was carried out in the department of surgery. Patients were enrolled and scored using RIPASA and Alvarado scoring systems. Appendectomy was done, and the specimen was sent for histopathology examination, which was used as the gold standard for diagnosis. Among 400 recruits, 11 patients were lost to follow-up, giving us a sample size of 389 patients. The cut-off value for RIPASA and Alvarado scores was 7.5 and 7.0, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy in diagnosing acute appendicitis of both scores were analyzed using SPSS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 389 patients, 256 (66%) were males, and 277 (71%) were under the age of 40 years. RIPASA was more than 7.5 in 345 cases, while Alvarado was more than 7.0 in 261 patients. RIPASA score had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 95.8%, 87.9%, 98.9%, and 65.9%, respectively. In contrast, the ALVARADO score was 71.1% sensitive and 75.8% specific. RIPASA had a diagnostic accuracy of 95.12%, while Alvarado was only 71.46% accurate in diagnosing acute appendicitis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to the Alvarado scoring system, RIPASA is a better tool in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for diagnosing acute appendicitis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23374,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Turkish Journal of Surgery\",\"volume\":\"39 3\",\"pages\":\"231-236\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10696447/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Turkish Journal of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47717/turkjsurg.2023.6124\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47717/turkjsurg.2023.6124","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在比较Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha阑尾炎(RIPASA)和Alvarado评分,以准确识别急性阑尾炎。材料与方法:在外科进行横断面前瞻性研究。患者入组并使用RIPASA和Alvarado评分系统进行评分。行阑尾切除术,标本送组织病理学检查,作为诊断的金标准。在400名新兵中,有11名患者没有随访,我们的样本量为389名患者。RIPASA和Alvarado评分的临界值分别为7.5和7.0。采用SPSS软件分析两种评分诊断急性阑尾炎的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值(NPV)及准确性。结果:389例患者中,男性256例(66%),40岁以下277例(71%)。345例患者的RIPASA评分超过7.5,而261例患者的Alvarado评分超过7.0。RIPASA评分的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)和阴性预测值(NPV)分别为95.8%、87.9%、98.9%和65.9%。相比之下,ALVARADO评分的敏感性为71.1%,特异性为75.8%。RIPASA诊断急性阑尾炎的准确率为95.12%,而Alvarado诊断急性阑尾炎的准确率仅为71.46%。结论:与Alvarado评分系统相比,RIPASA在诊断急性阑尾炎的准确性、敏感性和特异性方面均优于Alvarado评分系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
RIPASA versus Alvarado score in the assessment of acute appendicitis: A prospective study.

Objectives: This study aimed to compare Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) and Alvarado scoring to accurately identify acute appendicitis.

Material and methods: A cross-sectional prospective study was carried out in the department of surgery. Patients were enrolled and scored using RIPASA and Alvarado scoring systems. Appendectomy was done, and the specimen was sent for histopathology examination, which was used as the gold standard for diagnosis. Among 400 recruits, 11 patients were lost to follow-up, giving us a sample size of 389 patients. The cut-off value for RIPASA and Alvarado scores was 7.5 and 7.0, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy in diagnosing acute appendicitis of both scores were analyzed using SPSS.

Results: Among 389 patients, 256 (66%) were males, and 277 (71%) were under the age of 40 years. RIPASA was more than 7.5 in 345 cases, while Alvarado was more than 7.0 in 261 patients. RIPASA score had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 95.8%, 87.9%, 98.9%, and 65.9%, respectively. In contrast, the ALVARADO score was 71.1% sensitive and 75.8% specific. RIPASA had a diagnostic accuracy of 95.12%, while Alvarado was only 71.46% accurate in diagnosing acute appendicitis.

Conclusion: Compared to the Alvarado scoring system, RIPASA is a better tool in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for diagnosing acute appendicitis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信