HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Appendices E1-E3 All Versions of this Article: 2483071652v1 249/1/97    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by van Randen, A. Articles by Boermeester, M. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by van Randen, A. Articles by Boermeester, M. A.

Acute Appendicitis: Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of CT and Graded Compression US Related to Prevalence of Disease¹

¹ From the Departments of Radiology (A.v.R., S.B., J.S.), Surgery (A.v.R., D.T.U., M.A.B.), and Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Bioinformatics (A.H.Z., D.T.U.), Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Suite G1-227, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands. From the 2006 RSNA Annual Meeting. Received September 19, 2007; revision requested November 16; revision received January 29, 2008; accepted March 5; final version accepted March 17. Address correspondence to A.v.R. (e-mail: a.vanranden{at}amc.uva.nl).

Purpose: This study was a head-to-head comparison of graded compression ultrasonography (US) and computed tomography (CT) in helping diagnose acute appendicitis with an emphasis on diagnostic value at different disease prevalences, commonly occurring in various hospital settings.

Materials and Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases were searched from January 1966 to February 2006. Prospective trials were selected if they (a) compared graded compression US and CT in the same patient population; (b) included more than 10 patients, otherwise, the study was considered a case report; (c) evaluated mainly adults or adolescents; (d) used surgery and/or clinical follow-up as reference standard; and (e) reported data to calculate 2 x 2 contingency tables for graded compression US and CT. Estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) for US and CT were calculated. Posttest probabilities after CT and US were calculated for various clinically relevant prevalences.

Results: Six studies were included, evaluating 671 patients (mean age range, 26–38 years); prevalence of acute appendicitis was 50% (range, 13%–77%). Positive LR was 9.29 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.9, 12.6) for CT and 4.50 (95% CI: 3.0, 6.7; P = .011) for US, yielding posttest probabilities for positive tests of 90% and 82%, respectively. Negative LR was 0.10 (95% CI: 0.06, 0.17) for CT and 0.27 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.43) for US (P = .013), resulting in posttest probabilities of 9% and 21%, respectively. Posttest probabilities for positive tests were markedly decreased at lower prevalences.

Conclusion: In head-to-head comparison studies of diagnostic imaging, CT had a better test performance than did graded compression US in diagnosing appendicitis. Ignoring the relationship between prevalence (pretest probability) and diagnostic value may lead to an inaccurate estimation of diagnostic performance.

Supplemental material: http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/2491071652/DC1

© RSNA, 2008

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. Seo, K. H. Lee, H. J. Kim, K. Kim, S.-B. Kang, S. Y. Kim, and Y. H. Kim Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis With Sliding Slab Ray-Sum Interpretation of Low-Dose Unenhanced CT and Standard-Dose IV Contrast-Enhanced CT Scans Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2009; 193(1): 96 - 105. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]