RIASA和Alvarado评分系统诊断急性阑尾炎的比较分析——尼泊尔视角

S. Baral, Neeraj Thapa, R. Chhetri, Rupesh Sharma
{"title":"RIASA和Alvarado评分系统诊断急性阑尾炎的比较分析——尼泊尔视角","authors":"S. Baral, Neeraj Thapa, R. Chhetri, Rupesh Sharma","doi":"10.22502/JLMC.V6I2.264","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Various diagnostic criteria have been described for acute appendicitis. For decades the most commonly used one has been Alvarado score. RIPASA scoring system has also been developed for Asian population which has shown highest sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy. This study aimed to compare these two diagnostic criteria in Nepalese population attending a tertiary center. Methods: Patients with clinically suspected acute appendicitis were classified according to both Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems before undergoing surgery. Histopathological examination was taken as the gold standard for diagnosis. Statistical analysis was done using McNemar's test as applicable. Results: Ninety nine (90 %) patients had histologically confirmed appendicitis. With the cut-off value greater than 7.5 for RIPASA score; sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy and negative appendectomy rates were 94.5%, 27.27 %, 92.16 %, 37.5 %, 88.18% and 7.84% respectively. With the cut-off value greater than 7 for Alvarado score, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy and negative appendectomy rates were 71.72%, 72.73 %, 95.95 %, 22.22%, 71.82 %, and 4.05 % respectively. 94.5% of patients were correctly stratified by RIPASA under higher probability group while only 71.8 % were classified by Alvarado (p value= 0.0001). Conclusion: RIPASA scoring system showed high sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy in comparison to Alvarado scoring system. So, this method can be applied in Nepalese setting for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.","PeriodicalId":16109,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Lumbini Medical College","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparative Analysis Between RIPASA and Alvarado Scoring Systems for the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis- A Nepalese Perspective\",\"authors\":\"S. Baral, Neeraj Thapa, R. Chhetri, Rupesh Sharma\",\"doi\":\"10.22502/JLMC.V6I2.264\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Various diagnostic criteria have been described for acute appendicitis. For decades the most commonly used one has been Alvarado score. RIPASA scoring system has also been developed for Asian population which has shown highest sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy. This study aimed to compare these two diagnostic criteria in Nepalese population attending a tertiary center. Methods: Patients with clinically suspected acute appendicitis were classified according to both Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems before undergoing surgery. Histopathological examination was taken as the gold standard for diagnosis. Statistical analysis was done using McNemar's test as applicable. Results: Ninety nine (90 %) patients had histologically confirmed appendicitis. With the cut-off value greater than 7.5 for RIPASA score; sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy and negative appendectomy rates were 94.5%, 27.27 %, 92.16 %, 37.5 %, 88.18% and 7.84% respectively. With the cut-off value greater than 7 for Alvarado score, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy and negative appendectomy rates were 71.72%, 72.73 %, 95.95 %, 22.22%, 71.82 %, and 4.05 % respectively. 94.5% of patients were correctly stratified by RIPASA under higher probability group while only 71.8 % were classified by Alvarado (p value= 0.0001). Conclusion: RIPASA scoring system showed high sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy in comparison to Alvarado scoring system. So, this method can be applied in Nepalese setting for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16109,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Lumbini Medical College\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Lumbini Medical College\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22502/JLMC.V6I2.264\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Lumbini Medical College","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22502/JLMC.V6I2.264","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

急性阑尾炎的诊断标准多种多样。几十年来,最常用的是阿尔瓦拉多乐谱。RIPASA评分系统也被开发用于亚洲人群,显示出最高的灵敏度和诊断准确性。本研究旨在比较这两种诊断标准在尼泊尔人口参加三级中心。方法:对临床疑似急性阑尾炎患者术前按Alvarado评分和RIPASA评分进行分类。以组织病理学检查作为诊断的金标准。采用McNemar检验进行统计分析。结果:病理证实阑尾炎99例(90%)。RIPASA评分临界值大于7.5;敏感性94.5%,特异性27.27%,阳性预测值92.16%,阴性预测值37.5%,诊断准确率88.18%,阴性率7.84%。当Alvarado评分临界值大于7时,敏感性为71.72%,特异性为72.73%,阳性预测值为95.95%,阴性预测值为22.22%,诊断准确率为71.82%,阴性阑尾切除率为4.05%。高概率组RIPASA分层正确率为94.5%,Alvarado分层正确率仅为71.8% (p值= 0.0001)。结论:与Alvarado评分系统相比,RIPASA评分系统具有较高的敏感性和诊断准确性。因此,该方法可应用于尼泊尔地区急性阑尾炎的诊断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Comparative Analysis Between RIPASA and Alvarado Scoring Systems for the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis- A Nepalese Perspective
Introduction: Various diagnostic criteria have been described for acute appendicitis. For decades the most commonly used one has been Alvarado score. RIPASA scoring system has also been developed for Asian population which has shown highest sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy. This study aimed to compare these two diagnostic criteria in Nepalese population attending a tertiary center. Methods: Patients with clinically suspected acute appendicitis were classified according to both Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems before undergoing surgery. Histopathological examination was taken as the gold standard for diagnosis. Statistical analysis was done using McNemar's test as applicable. Results: Ninety nine (90 %) patients had histologically confirmed appendicitis. With the cut-off value greater than 7.5 for RIPASA score; sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy and negative appendectomy rates were 94.5%, 27.27 %, 92.16 %, 37.5 %, 88.18% and 7.84% respectively. With the cut-off value greater than 7 for Alvarado score, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy and negative appendectomy rates were 71.72%, 72.73 %, 95.95 %, 22.22%, 71.82 %, and 4.05 % respectively. 94.5% of patients were correctly stratified by RIPASA under higher probability group while only 71.8 % were classified by Alvarado (p value= 0.0001). Conclusion: RIPASA scoring system showed high sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy in comparison to Alvarado scoring system. So, this method can be applied in Nepalese setting for the diagnosis of 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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 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