根据病理证据评估和比较阿尔瓦拉多评分系统与急性炎症反应评分在诊断急性阑尾炎中的结果

IF 1.1 Q4 IMMUNOLOGY
M. Safaee, Reza Eshraghi Samani, Hamid Talebzadeh, Mohammad Soheil Moeini Sam
{"title":"根据病理证据评估和比较阿尔瓦拉多评分系统与急性炎症反应评分在诊断急性阑尾炎中的结果","authors":"M. Safaee, Reza Eshraghi Samani, Hamid Talebzadeh, Mohammad Soheil Moeini Sam","doi":"10.34172/ipp.2024.40606","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Although appendectomy is the most common reason for abdominal surgery, acute appendicitis (AA) diagnosis remained a challenging issue using various scoring systems. Objectives: The current study aims to investigate the diagnostic value of the Alvarado scoring system versus the acute inflammatory response score (AIRS) in the diagnosis of AA. Patients and Methods: The current cross-sectional study was conducted on 120 patients who underwent appendectomy between 2019 and 2020. The on-admission Alvarado and AIRS scores were evaluated for the patients. Besides, the histopathological study of the resected tissues was considered the gold standard. The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve was depicted for the scoring systems, and sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV), and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. Results: The sensitivity, specificity, NPV, and PPV of Alvarado criteria for scores >4 equaled 89.3%, 23.5%, 35.2%, and 89.3%, respectively. These amounts were calculated as 96.1%, 82.3%, 77.7%, and 97% for the AIRS, respectively. Moreover, at cut-points >8, the sensitivity of 32.1%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, and NPV of 15.7% have been measured for AIRS compared with 41.7%, 88.2%, 97.1%, and 29.4% for Alvarado, respectively. The measured AUC for AIRS and Alvarado criteria accounted for 0.81 and 0.72, respectively (P value <0.05). Besides, 17 (14.16%) ones had a negative appendectomy. Conclusion: Based on the current study’s findings, both AIRS and Alvarado scoring systems were reliable means to diagnose appendicitis; however, AIRS was relatively superior considering its higher specificity and PPV in scores >8 and higher sensitivity and NPV in scores >4.","PeriodicalId":13454,"journal":{"name":"Immunopathologia Persa","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation and comparison of the results of the Alvarado scoring system with acute inflammatory response score in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis based on the pathological evidence\",\"authors\":\"M. Safaee, Reza Eshraghi Samani, Hamid Talebzadeh, Mohammad Soheil Moeini Sam\",\"doi\":\"10.34172/ipp.2024.40606\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Although appendectomy is the most common reason for abdominal surgery, acute appendicitis (AA) diagnosis remained a challenging issue using various scoring systems. Objectives: The current study aims to investigate the diagnostic value of the Alvarado scoring system versus the acute inflammatory response score (AIRS) in the diagnosis of AA. Patients and Methods: The current cross-sectional study was conducted on 120 patients who underwent appendectomy between 2019 and 2020. The on-admission Alvarado and AIRS scores were evaluated for the patients. Besides, the histopathological study of the resected tissues was considered the gold standard. The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve was depicted for the scoring systems, and sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV), and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. Results: The sensitivity, specificity, NPV, and PPV of Alvarado criteria for scores >4 equaled 89.3%, 23.5%, 35.2%, and 89.3%, respectively. These amounts were calculated as 96.1%, 82.3%, 77.7%, and 97% for the AIRS, respectively. Moreover, at cut-points >8, the sensitivity of 32.1%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, and NPV of 15.7% have been measured for AIRS compared with 41.7%, 88.2%, 97.1%, and 29.4% for Alvarado, respectively. The measured AUC for AIRS and Alvarado criteria accounted for 0.81 and 0.72, respectively (P value <0.05). Besides, 17 (14.16%) ones had a negative appendectomy. Conclusion: Based on the current study’s findings, both AIRS and Alvarado scoring systems were reliable means to diagnose appendicitis; however, AIRS was relatively superior considering its higher specificity and PPV in scores >8 and higher sensitivity and NPV in scores >4.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13454,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Immunopathologia Persa\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Immunopathologia Persa\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34172/ipp.2024.40606\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Immunopathologia Persa","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/ipp.2024.40606","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:虽然阑尾切除术是腹部手术最常见的原因,但使用各种评分系统来诊断急性阑尾炎(AA)仍是一个具有挑战性的问题。研究目的本研究旨在探讨阿尔瓦拉多评分系统与急性炎症反应评分(AIRS)在 AA 诊断中的诊断价值。患者和方法:本横断面研究针对 2019 年至 2020 年间接受阑尾切除术的 120 名患者。对患者入院时的 Alvarado 和 AIRS 评分进行了评估。此外,切除组织的组织病理学研究被视为金标准。描述了评分系统的接收器操作特征曲线(ROC),并计算了灵敏度、特异性、阴性预测值(NPV)和阳性预测值(PPV)以及曲线下面积(AUC)。结果阿尔瓦拉多标准对评分大于 4 分的敏感性、特异性、NPV 和 PPV 分别为 89.3%、23.5%、35.2% 和 89.3%。而 AIRS 的计算结果分别为 96.1%、82.3%、77.7% 和 97%。此外,在切点大于 8 时,AIRS 的灵敏度为 32.1%,特异性为 100%,PPV 为 100%,NPV 为 15.7%,而 Alvarado 的灵敏度、特异性、PPV 和 NPV 分别为 41.7%、88.2%、97.1% 和 29.4%。测得的 AIRS 和 Alvarado 标准的 AUC 分别为 0.81 和 0.72(P 值为 8),得分大于 4 分的灵敏度和 NPV 较高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation and comparison of the results of the Alvarado scoring system with acute inflammatory response score in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis based on the pathological evidence
Introduction: Although appendectomy is the most common reason for abdominal surgery, acute appendicitis (AA) diagnosis remained a challenging issue using various scoring systems. Objectives: The current study aims to investigate the diagnostic value of the Alvarado scoring system versus the acute inflammatory response score (AIRS) in the diagnosis of AA. Patients and Methods: The current cross-sectional study was conducted on 120 patients who underwent appendectomy between 2019 and 2020. The on-admission Alvarado and AIRS scores were evaluated for the patients. Besides, the histopathological study of the resected tissues was considered the gold standard. The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve was depicted for the scoring systems, and sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV), and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. Results: The sensitivity, specificity, NPV, and PPV of Alvarado criteria for scores >4 equaled 89.3%, 23.5%, 35.2%, and 89.3%, respectively. These amounts were calculated as 96.1%, 82.3%, 77.7%, and 97% for the AIRS, respectively. Moreover, at cut-points >8, the sensitivity of 32.1%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, and NPV of 15.7% have been measured for AIRS compared with 41.7%, 88.2%, 97.1%, and 29.4% for Alvarado, respectively. The measured AUC for AIRS and Alvarado criteria accounted for 0.81 and 0.72, respectively (P value <0.05). Besides, 17 (14.16%) ones had a negative appendectomy. Conclusion: Based on the current study’s findings, both AIRS and Alvarado scoring systems were reliable means to diagnose appendicitis; however, AIRS was relatively superior considering its higher specificity and PPV in scores >8 and higher sensitivity and NPV in scores >4.
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
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
65
审稿时长
3 weeks
×
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