Acute appendicitis: meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of CT and graded compression US related to prevalence of disease.

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.

[1]  P. Babyn,et al.  US or CT for Diagnosis of Appendicitis in Children and Adults? A Meta-Analysis. , 2006, Radiology.

[2]  B. Siewert,et al.  MR imaging evaluation of acute appendicitis in pregnancy. , 2006, Radiology.

[3]  Johannes B Reitsma,et al.  Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies , 2006, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[4]  J. E. Tucker,et al.  Nontraumatic acute abdominal pain: unenhanced helical CT compared with three-view acute abdominal series. , 2005, Radiology.

[5]  Johannes B Reitsma,et al.  Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. , 2005, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[6]  D. Flum,et al.  A systematic review of whether oral contrast is necessary for the computed tomography diagnosis of appendicitis in adults. , 2005, American journal of surgery.

[7]  P. Gevenois,et al.  Comparison of US and unenhanced multi-detector row CT in patients suspected of having acute appendicitis. , 2005, Radiology.

[8]  B. Nan,et al.  Incidence of acute appendicitis in patients with equivocal CT findings. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  A. Oto,et al.  Right-lower-quadrant pain and suspected appendicitis in pregnant women: evaluation with MR imaging--initial experience. , 2005, Radiology.

[10]  R. Semelka,et al.  MRI of acute abdominal and pelvic pain in pregnant patients. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  Teruhiko Terasawa,et al.  Systematic Review: Computed Tomography and Ultrasonography To Detect Acute Appendicitis in Adults and Adolescents , 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[12]  K. Chu,et al.  Radiological imaging to improve the emergency department diagnosis of acute appendicitis. , 2004, Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA.

[13]  J. Blickman,et al.  MRI for clinically suspected appendicitis during pregnancy. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  P. Gevenois,et al.  Acute appendicitis: comparison of low-dose and standard-dose unenhanced multi-detector row CT. , 2004, Radiology.

[15]  Polly E. Bijur,et al.  Ability of CT to alter decision making in elderly patients with acute abdominal pain. , 2002, The American journal of emergency medicine.

[16]  L. Neumayer,et al.  Imaging in Appendicitis: A Review With Special Emphasis on the Treatment of Women , 2003, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[17]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  BMC Medical Research Methodology , 2002 .

[18]  J. Hamming,et al.  Comparison of CT and sonography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: a blinded prospective study. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[19]  J. Puylaert,et al.  Effect of ultrasonography and optional computed tomography on the outcome of appendectomy , 2003, European Radiology.

[20]  C A Gatsonis,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. , 2003, Clinical radiology.

[21]  B. Siewert,et al.  Value of abdominal CT in the emergency department for patients with abdominal pain , 2003, European Radiology.

[22]  C. Palmer,et al.  Evaluation of early abdominopelvic computed tomography in patients with acute abdominal pain of unknown cause: prospective randomised study , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[23]  J. Cronan,et al.  Acute nontraumatic abdominal pain in adult patients: abdominal radiography compared with CT evaluation. , 2002, Radiology.

[24]  T. Ptak,et al.  Prediction Rule for Etiology of Vague Abdominal Pain in the Emergency Room: Utility for Imaging Triage , 2002, Investigative radiology.

[25]  Y. Tsushima,et al.  Effect of contrast-enhanced computed tomography on diagnosis and management of acute abdomen in adults. , 2002, Clinical radiology.

[26]  S Halligan,et al.  The therapeutic impact of abdominal ultrasound in patients with acute abdominal symptoms. , 2002, Clinical radiology.

[27]  B. Funaki,et al.  Conventional and hydrocolonic US of the appendix with CT correlation performed by on-call radiology residents. , 2001, Academic radiology.

[28]  B. Coughlin,et al.  Diagnosing appendicitis with CT and ultrasound using prospective patient stratification by body mass index , 2001, Emergency Radiology.

[29]  R Platt,et al.  Is There a “Best” Way to Detect and Minimize Publication Bias? , 2001, Evaluation & the health professions.

[30]  M. Nipper,et al.  Computed tomography and ultrasonography in the diagnosis of appendicitis: when are they indicated? , 2001, Archives of surgery.

[31]  H. Ho,et al.  Computed tomography and ultrasonography do not improve and may delay the diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis. , 2001, Archives of surgery.

[32]  C. Kasales,et al.  Comparative assessment of CT and sonographic techniques for appendiceal imaging. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[33]  Y. Chou,et al.  Sonography of acute right side colonic diverticulitis. , 2001, American journal of surgery.

[34]  S. Goldberg,et al.  Right lower quadrant pain and suspected appendicitis: nonfocused appendiceal CT--review of 100 cases. , 2000, Radiology.

[35]  Jinxing Yu,et al.  Diagnosis of acute appendicitis: comparison of 5- and 10-mm CT sections in the same patient. , 2000, Radiology.

[36]  M. Florence,et al.  A prospective trial of computed tomography and ultrasonography for diagnosing appendicitis in the atypical patient. , 2000, American journal of surgery.

[37]  B. Birnbaum,et al.  Appendicitis at the millennium. , 2000, Radiology.

[38]  S. Heywang-Köbrunner,et al.  Suspected acute appendicitis: is ultrasonography or computed tomography the preferred imaging technique? , 2000, The European journal of surgery = Acta chirurgica.

[39]  J. Styrud,et al.  Reducing negative appendectomy: evaluation of ultrasonography and computer tomography in acute appendicitis. , 2000, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[40]  J. Kuhn,et al.  The role of computed tomography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. , 1999, American journal of surgery.

[41]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement , 1999, The Lancet.

[42]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. , 1999, JAMA.

[43]  F. Largiadèr,et al.  Ultrasound scans done by surgeons for patients with acute abdominal pain: a prospective study. , 1999, The European journal of surgery = Acta chirurgica.

[44]  C. Feltmate,et al.  Helical computed tomography in differentiating appendicitis and acute gynecologic conditions. , 1999, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[45]  G. Taylor,et al.  Impact of sonography on the diagnosis and treatment of acute lower abdominal pain in children and young adults. , 1999, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[46]  K. Kizer,et al.  Emergency department diagnosis of abdominal disorders in the elderly. , 1998, The American journal of emergency medicine.

[47]  Diederick E. Grobbee,et al.  Limitations of Sensitivity, Specificity, Likelihood Ratio, and Bayes' Theorem in Assessing Diagnostic Probabilities: A Clinical Example , 1997, Epidemiology.

[48]  D. Hartman,et al.  Ultrasonography to evaluate adults for appendicitis: decision making based on meta-analysis and probabilistic reasoning. , 1995, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[49]  A. Guertler,et al.  Abdominal pain in the ED: stability and change over 20 years. , 1995, The American journal of emergency medicine.

[50]  P. Lipponen,et al.  Acute appendicitis in patients over the age of 65 years; comparison of clinical and computer based decision making. , 1994, International journal of bio-medical computing.

[51]  J. Yee,et al.  Acute appendicitis: CT and US correlation in 100 patients. , 1994, Radiology.

[52]  R. Tauxe,et al.  The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. , 1990, American journal of epidemiology.

[53]  J. Puylaert,et al.  A prospective study of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of appendicitis. , 1987, The New England journal of medicine.