scholarly journals Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis score for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in comparison with the Alvarado score

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 459
Author(s):  
Mannem G. K. Reddy ◽  
V. Mahidhar Reddy

Background: Different scoring systems have been created to increase diagnostic accuracy, and they are inexpensive, non-invasive, and easy to use and reproduce. The modified Alvarado score is widely used in emergency services. The Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) score was formulated in 2010 and has greater sensitivity and specificity. The aim of our article was to compare the usefulness of modified RIPASA score and Alvarado score in the diagnosis of patients with abdominal pain and suspected acute appendicitis.Methods: A prospective study was undertaken among 100 cases presenting with signs and symptoms suggestive of acute appendicitis, conducted at the Narayana medical college hospital, Nellore. The questionnaires used for the evaluation process were applied to the patients suspected of having appendicitis.Results: A total of 100 patients, 95% underwent laparoscopic procedure. The cut-off threshold point of the Alvarado score was set at 7.0, which yielded a sensitivity of 65% and a specificity of 52%. The positive predictive value was 65%. The cut-off threshold point of the modified RIPASA score was set at 7.5, which yielded 90% sensitivity and 72% specificity. The positive predictive value was 89% and the NPV was 30%.Conclusions: On comparing both the scores, sensitivity and specificity was higher for modified RIPASA score. The positive predictive value was higher for the Alvarado and negative predictive value was higher for RIPASA score. Bothe p values were statistically significant.

2021 ◽  
pp. 25-28
Author(s):  
M. Vijaya Kumar ◽  
Manasa Manasa

Acute appendicitis is the most common condition encountered in the Emergency department .Alvarado and Modied Alvarado scores are the most commonly used scoring system used for diagnosing acute appendicitis.,but its performance has been found to be poor in certain population . Hence our aim was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of RIPASA and ALVARADO Scoring system and study and compare sensitivity, specicity and predictive values of these scoring systems. The study was conducted in Government district hospital Nandyal . We enrolled 176 patients who presented with RIF pain . Both RIPASA and ALVARADO were applied to them. Final diagnosis was conrmed either by CT scan, intra operative nding or post operative HPE report. Sensitivity,specicity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy was calculated both for RIPASA and ALVARADO. It was found that sensitivity and specicity of the RIPASA score in our study are 98.7% and 83.3%, respectively. PPV and NPV were 98.1% and 88.2% and sensitivity and specicity of the Alvardo score in our study are 94.3% and 83.3%, respectively. PPV and NPV were 98% and 62.5%.Diagnostic accuracy of RIPASA score and Alvarado score are 97% and 93% respectively. RIPASA is a more specic and accurate scoring system in our local population when compared to ALVARADO . It reduces the number of missed appendicitis cases and also convincingly lters out the group of patients that would need a CT scan for diagnosis (score 5-7.5 ) BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis is one of the most commonly dealt surgical emergencies, with a lifetime prevalence rate of approximately 1 one in seven. The incidence is 1.5–1.9 per 1,000 in the male and female population, and is approximately 1.4 times greater in men than in women. Despite being a common problem, it remains a difcult diagnosis to establish, particularly among the young, the elderly and females of reproductive age, where a host of other genitourinary and gynaecological inammatory conditions can present with signs and symptoms that are 2 similar to those of acute appendicitis. A delay in performing an appendectomy in order to improve its diagnostic accuracy increases the risk of appendicular perforation and peritonitis, which in turn increases morbidity and mortality. A variable combination of clinical signs and symptoms has been used together with laboratory ndings in several scoring systems proposed for suggesting the probability of Acute Appendicitis and the possible subsequent management pathway. The Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) and ALVARADO score are new diagnostic scoring systems developed for the diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis and has been shown to have signicantly higher sensitivity, specicity and diagnostic accuracy. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES PRIMARY OBJECT 1. To compare RIPASA Scoring system and ALVARADO Scoring system in terms of diagnostic accuracy in Acute Appendicitis. 2. To study and compare sensitivity, specicity and predictive values of above scoring systems. SECONDARY OBJECT 1. To study the rate of negative appendicectomy based on above scoring systems. CONCLUSION: The RIPASA score is a simple scoring system with high sensitivity and specicity for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The 14 clinical parameters are all present in a good clinical history and examination and can be easily and quickly applied. Therefore, a decision on the management can be made early. Although the RIPASA score was developed for the local population of Brunei, we believe that it should be applicable to other regions. The RIPASA score presents greater Diagnostic accuracy and Sensitivity and equal specicity as a diagnostic test compared to the Alvarado score and is helpful in making appropriate therapeutic decisions. In hospitals like ours, the diagnosis of AA relies greatly on the clinical evaluation performed by surgeons. An adequate clinical scoring system would avoid diagnostic errors, maintaining a satisfactory low rate of negative appendectomies by adequate patient stratication, while limiting patient exposure to ionizing radiation, since 21 there is an increased risk of developing cancer with computed tomography, particularly for the paediatric age group.


2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 213-216
Author(s):  
Bhusan Raj Timilsina ◽  
Rajiv Shah ◽  
Sudeep Raj KC ◽  
Hari Prasad Upadhyay ◽  
Sunita Lamsal ◽  
...  

INTRODUCTION: Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical condition presented to the emergency department. Clinical scoring systems such as the Alvarado and modified Alvarado scoring system were developed with the goal of reducing the negative appendectomy rate to 5%–10%. In the other hand the Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) scoring system was established in 2008 specifically for Asian population. The aim of this study was to compare the modified Alvarado with the RIPASA scoring system in the Nepalese population. METHODS: This study included 125 patients who had undergone appendectomies from March of 2017 to January 2018. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), diagnostic accuracy, predicted negative appendectomy and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the modified Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems were derived using SPSS statistical software. RESULTS: A total of 125 patients were included in this study according to our criteria. The cut-off threshold point of the modified Alvarado score was set at 7.0, which yielded a sensitivity of 68.64% and a specificity of 28.57%. The PPV was 95% and the NPV was 5.12%. The cut-off threshold point of the RIPASA score was set at 7.5, which yielded 88.13% sensitivity and 28.57% specificity. The PPV was 95.41% and the NPV was 12.5%. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this study, the RIPASA score is a simple scoring system with better sensitivity and specificity similar to the modified Alvarado scoring system. KEYWORDS: Acute appendicitis, Modified Alvarado Score, RIPASA score.


2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 796
Author(s):  
Vamsavardhan Pasumarthi ◽  
C. P. Madhu

Background: The RIPASA Score is a new diagnostic scoring system developed for the diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis which showed higher sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy compared to ALVARADO Score, particularly when applied to Asian population. Not many studies have been conducted to compare RIPASA and ALVARADO scoring systems. Hence, author want to compare prospectively Alvarado and RIPASA score by applying them to the patients attending the hospital with right iliac fossa pain that could probably be acute appendicitis.Methods: A prospective analysis of 116 cases admitted with RIF pain during a 2 years period was performed. Patients between 15-60 years were scored as per Alvarado and RIPASA scoring system. Histopathological reports of the cases were collected and compared with the scores. ROC curve area analysis was performed to examine diagnostic accuracy of RIPASA and ALVARADO scores.Results: The sensitivity of ALVARADO score is estimated to be 52.08 for a cut off of 6. The specificity is 80%, positive predictive value is 92.59, negative predictive value is 25.81. The Diagnostic accuracy of ALVARADO scoring is found to be 56.9. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive values of RIPASA scoring system are 75%, 65%, 91.14%, 35.14%. The diagnostic accuracy of RIPASA score is 73.28.Conclusions: The difference in the diagnostic accuracy between ALVARADO and RIPASA scoring system is significant indicating that the RIPASA score is a much better diagnostic tool for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. When the ROC curve was observed the area under the curve is high for RIPASA scoring system.


2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. 3175-3177
Author(s):  
Anum Iftikhar ◽  
Muhammad Arsalan ◽  
Sheeza Azaz ◽  
S H Waqar ◽  
Sajid Ali Shah ◽  
...  

Aim: To find out how accurate the Alvarado and Tzanaki scoring systems are in diagnosing acute appendicitis taking histopathology as gold standard. Methods: A cross-sectional prospective study was conducted from August 2019 to July 2020 at Department of General Surgery, Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences Islamabad. Sixty patients were included, all of whom had appendectomies after a clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Samples were submitted for histopathology, which was used as the gold standard for the definitive diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), diagnostic accuracy and negative appendectomy rate of Alvarado and Tzanaki scoring systems was calculated using SPSS version 23. Results: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of Alvarado score at optimal cut-off threshold of ≥7.0, were calculated as 74%, 55%, 90%, 27% and 71.66% respectively. The cut-off threshold point of Tzanaki score was set at more than 8, which yielded a 94.11% sensitivity and an 88.88% specificity. The positive predictive value was 99.95% and the negative predictive value was 72.72%. The Alvarado and Tzanaki scoring systems had negative appendectomy rates of 9.5% and 2.04%, respectively. Conclusion: The Tzanaki scoring system has a better diagnostic accuracy for acute appendicitis as compared to the Alvarado score. Keywords: Acute appendicitis, Alvarado score, Tzanaki score


2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Suman Baral ◽  
Neeraj Thapa ◽  
Raj Kumar Chhetri ◽  
Rupesh Sharma

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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 1826
Author(s):  
Dijo S. Joseph ◽  
Alfie J. Kavalakat ◽  
John M. Mandumpala ◽  
Suresh V. Mayyattil

Background: Acute appendicitis is one of the most common surgical emergencies. Various clinical scoring systems have been used for early diagnosis of acute appendicitis, of which Alvarado score is the most popular but it is found to be less accurate when applied to Asian population compared to RIPASA score. Radiological modalities such as computed tomography (CT) imaging may aid in making a definite diagnosis but will inflate the cost of treatment. This study aims to compare RIPASA and Alvarado scoring system in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in our population.Methods: It was a comparative cross-sectional study done in 100 patients. RIPASA and Alvarado scores were applied to each patient. Our inclusion criteria were patients presenting with Right iliac fossa pain who subsequently underwent Appendicectomy in the same admission. Exclusion criteria included patients admitted under other specialties, those who underwent previous appendicectomy, elective appendicectomy and those not willing for the study.  Results: The sensitivity and specificity of RIPASA score was 95.12% and 66.67% and that of ALVARADO score was 64.63% and 77.78%. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of RIPASA score was 92.86% and 75% and that of Alvarado score was 92.98% and 32.5%. The diagnostic accuracy of Alvarado and RIPASA scores were 67.0% and 90.0% respectively.Conclusions: RIPASA scoring system is more accurate and specific scoring system for our population than Alvarado in diagnosing acute appendicitis.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (37) ◽  
pp. 3252-3256
Author(s):  
Suhas Devanathan ◽  
Darshana Tote ◽  
Sandip Shinde

BACKGROUND Acute appendicitis is very commonly diagnosed when a patient presents with acute abdomen. This is more commonly seen in the young and middle-aged individuals. The clinical signs and symptoms determine the diagnosis and management. Scoring systems are in plenty to diagnose acute appendicitis and mainly include the presenting signs and symptoms, but are not acceptable for all populations with different age groups. Modified Alvarado scoring system is a timed tested scoring system used in different populations and age groups with good efficacy and to provide a bedside clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The purpose of this study was to assess effectiveness of modified Alvarado score in the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis. METHODS A prospective observational study was done which incorporated 50 patients presenting with the signs and symptoms pointing out to acute appendicitis, clinically. The patients were evaluated by Modified Alvarado score during admission and based on the treating surgeon’s decision, were operated. Finally, the score was compared with the diagnosis achieved with a histopathological examination of the operated specimen. RESULTS The sensitivity of raja isteri penigran anak saleha appendicitis (RIPASA) score was 70.58 %, specificity was 68.75 %, positive predictive value (PPV) was 82.75 %, negative predictive value (NPV) of RIPASA score was 52.38 % and the diagnostic accuracy of RIPASA score was 70 %. CONCLUSIONS Modified Alvarado scoring system is simple scoring system which can be used in a bedside manner but uses specific and limited features for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis which limits the effectiveness of this scoring system. KEY WORDS Acute Abdomen, Clinical Scoring System, Modified Alvarado Scoring System


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (11) ◽  
pp. 3937
Author(s):  
Waleed Yusif El Sherpiny

Background: Various diagnostic criteria have been described for diagnosing acute appendicitis. Of these, Alvarado score has been the most commonly used. The RIPASA score is a new diagnostic scoring system developed for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis and showed higher sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy as compared to Alvarado score. we want to compare prospectively Alvarado and RIPASA score by applying them to patients attending emergency department complaining of right iliac fossa pain that could probably be acute appendicitis.Methods: Patients with clinically suspected acute appendicitis were classified according to both Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems before undergoing surgery. Histopathological examination of the removed appendix was taken as the gold standard for diagnosis of acute appendicitis.Results: Among (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  were 88.2%, 14.5%, 73.1%, 32%,and 68% 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 51.2%, 80 %, 91 %, 29%, and 57%, respectively. 87.5% of patients were correctly stratified by RIPASA under higher probability group while only 45% were classified by Alvarado as high probability.Conclusions: RIPASA scoring system showed high sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy in comparison to Alvarado scoring system. So, it can be applied   for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 1108
Author(s):  
Debabrata Gope ◽  
Anuradha Santosh Dnayanmote ◽  
Saurav Mahesh Thakkar ◽  
Akriti Rajkumar Tulsian ◽  
Shweta Achuthan Kutty ◽  
...  

Background: Acute abdominal pain is a common complaint in the emergency department. Diagnostics of one of the most common pathologies behind acute abdominal pain, acute appendicitis, has radically changed over the last decades. There are several different diagnostic scores for suspected acute appendicitis. The Alvarado score being most widely known. Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score was designed to overcome drawbacks of previous scores. This score incorporated the C-reactive protein value in its design and was developed and validated on a prospective cohort of patients with suspicion of acute appendicitis.Methods: Patients with pain in RIF were admitted. Scores were assessed, patients whose score was significant by either of the system were subjected for appendicectomy. The specimens of appendix were sent for histo-pathological examination (HPE). Post-operative histopathology report was correlated with the scores. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive for AIR and Alvarado score were calculated.Results: For scores >4, AIR score has higher sensitivity and specificity. The negative predictive value (NPV) of AIR score was higher and the positive predictive value (PPV) of AIR score was also high. For scores >8, Alvarado score has higher sensitivity as compared to AIR score whereas AIR score has higher specificity as compared to Alvarado score. NPV of Alvarado score was higher while PPV of AIR score was higher.Conclusions: In this study AIR score had Alvarado score displaying higher sensitivity and specificity.


2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 725
Author(s):  
Yashwant R. Lamture ◽  
Varsha P. Gajbhiye

Background: Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency. Inspite of sophisticated new investigations mainstay of diagnosis depends on clinical sign and symptoms, rebound tenderness is very important sign with controversial views regarding it in available literature. Hence this study was undertaken to prove its efficacy of it related to rule out appendicular perforations.Methods: This study was conducted in 418 patients with 186 female and 251 male. Patients were of acute appendicitis operated for appendicectomy were included in the study. Data analysis was done by data statistic software.Results: The sensitivity and specificity of rebound tenderness to diagnose acute appendicitis is 65% and 73.6% respectively whereas the sensitivity and specificity of rebound tenderness to diagnose appendicular perforation was 94% and23.3% respectively with positive predictive value is 5 and negative predictive value is 99.Conclusions: Hence it indicates that rebound tenderness is very important to rule out complications like perforation or peritonitis and to support diagnosis of acute appendicitis. It has minimal significance to diagnose perforation of appendix as positive predictive value is less.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document