Validation of the Modified Alvarado Score in Patients Attending A&E Unit With Suspected Appendicitis – Prospective Clinical Study

BackgroundThe aim of our prospective study was to confirm the validity, diagnostic accuracy of the modified Alvarado score developed in the Department of Surgery, University of Szeged.Methods138 patients were enrolled in our study between 01 January 2019 and 01 January 2020. The patient’s modified Alvarado score was calculated in the Emergency Department before surgical consultation and decision of further therapy. The score was validated based on the final histology finding of the removed appendix. Additionally, potential correlation was examined between the frequency of drain usage, hospital stay, antibiotic use and the severity of the inflammation. ResultsComparing the scores with the histological findings, specificity of the modified Alvarado score was 84.78%, its sensitivity was 97.83% (with cutoff value of 5.5). Spearman's rank correlation (0.796) and ROC analysis (area under the curve 0.968) confirmed that the modified Alvarado score has an excellent predictive value in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Based on the result of the Fisher's exact test, cross tabulation and Spearman’s rank correlation correlation was found between the severity of the inflammation determined by the histology finding, the selected antibiotic and the duration of the antibiotic therapy, the average duration of hospitalization and drain insertion. ConclusionsBased on the results of our study, predictive value of the new, modified score system is excellent, using this score system is safe in the differential diagnosis of acute appendicitis as an aid for non-surgical consultants in emergency care. This new score system may decrease the number of unnecessary surgical consultations, decrease waiting time of the patients and some unnecessary examinations can be avoided. Trial RegistrationValidation of the modified Alvarado score in patients presenting in the Emergency Department with right lower abdominal complaints, ethical license number: 248/2018/SZTE, date of registration: 2018.11.04., name of ethics committee: SZTE SZAKK Regionális és Intézményi Humán Orvosbiológiai Kutatásetikai Bizottság- Clinical Research Coordination Office of the University of Szeged

Decision Support Proposal for Imbalanced Clinical Data

The difficult diagnosis of acute appendicitis of patients appealing to the hospital with abdominal pain often leads to unnecessary acute appendicitis operations. Accordingly, the aim of this study is to be able to provide the correct diagnosis whether the existing case indeed necessitates operation or not through machine learning algorithms based on classification. To that purpose, SMOTE, random oversampling, and random undersampling methods were proposed to reduce the negative effects of imbalanced data set problem on classification, and it was benefitted from the risk factors in relation to Alvarado Score to predict the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Additionally, a classification model was generated by using support vector machine classification algorithm. A decision support system was developed that could contribute to the decision making by generating interface for support vector machine algorithm in which the best performance was obtained.

Comparison of the Modified Alvarado Score and Ultrasonography for Diagnosing Acute Appendicitis

Background: Acute appendicitis can be diagnosed much accurately by using Modified Alvarado score and Ultrasound together in the clinical setting. Objectives: Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of Modified Alvarado score and Ultrasonographic findings in acute appendicitis. Materials and Methods: A total of 200 patients of age group ranging from 4-65 years, both male and female, who visited the tertiary health care center with clinical features suggestive of acute appendicitis were randomly selected. Data from the patients regarding their Modified Alvarado score, ultrasonographic findings and histopathological reports were collected for the study. Statistical analysis was performed for the results of both Modified Alvarado score and Ultrasonographic findings in contrast to the pathology reports. Results: The study included 200 patients, with maximum incidence of acute appendicitis seen in males (70.5%) and among 21-30 age groups (40.5%). The sensitivity, specificity of Modified Alvarado Score was 89.47% and 73.33%, with Positive Predictive Value, Negative Predictive Value and diagnostic accuracy being 40%, 73.33% and 45% respectively. Ultrasonography revealed 89.58% sensitivity, 15.62 % specificity, Positive predictive value and NPV were 75.88% and 50%, and diagnostic accuracy was 72%. The negative appendectomies rates accounted to 15%. Conclusion: It is advised that both Modified Alvarado score and Ultrasound can be used to together to diagnose acute appendicitis. This can be useful in decreasing the negative appendectomies and hence reduce the morbidity and mortality.

A Comparison between the Diagnostic Accuracy of Alvarado and Tzanaki Scoring Systems in Acute Appendicitis

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

Evaluation of validity of scoring systems in diagnosing acute appendicitis: a single centre prospective observational study

Background: Acute appendicitis is a very common cause of acute abdominal pain, requiring surgical intervention with a 7% life time risk. Various clinical scoring systems like Alvarado, appendicitis inflammatory response (AIR), Tzanaki scores enables risk stratification. In this study, we have validated the diagnostic accuracy of various scoring systems like Alvarado, Tzanaki and AIR scores. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study for patients admitted in a tertiary care hospital. A total of 81 patients were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A detailed clinical history, physical examination, relevant blood investigations and necessary imaging were done for all the patients. Using the above data, the probability of acute appendicitis is calculated using the Alvarado, Tzanaki and AIR scores. The various scores obtained were compared with the histopathological examination (HPE) reports (reference standard) and values like sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were calculated.Results: With regard to scores, Alvarado scores has a sensitivity 95.24%, specificity 77.78%, PPV of 93.75%, NPV of 82.35%. Tzanaki score has a sensitivity of 100%, specificity 23.5%, PPV of 83.12% and NPV of 100%. AIR score has a sensitivity of 95%, specificity of 66.67%, PPV of 89.06% and NPV of 82.35%. Conclusions: Alvarado score (cut off 7) has the best PPV (93.75%) and hence is the best scoring system to “rule in” a positive diagnosis. However, Tzanaki score (cut off 8) has the best NPV (100%) and hence is the best score to “rule out” a diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

“A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RIPASA SCORE AND ALVARADO SCORE IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF ACUTE APPENDICITIS”

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.

RIPASA versus Alvarado score in the assessment of suspected appendicitis in children: a prospective study

Background Diagnosis of acute appendicitis remains a problem in children with right lower quadrant pain. Challenging diagnosis and fears of missing an inflamed appendix may lead to a negative appendectomy. Many scoring systems have been developed to reduce ambiguities in the diagnosis of appendicitis. Alvarado is one of the most commonly used scoring methods in pediatric patients. The RIPASA score is considered to be a better diagnostic scoring method in adults compared to Alvarado. The present study aims to compare RIPASA and Alvarado scoring systems in determining the possibility of acute appendicitis in children with right lower quadrant pain. This study included 179 consecutive pediatric patients who were referred to pediatric surgery with suspicion of acute appendicitis. The cut-off value was >7.5 for the RIPASA score vs. ≥7 for the Alvarado score. The possibility of appendicitis was divided into three groups for the Alvarado score and four groups for the RIPASA score. Results In this study, 158 of 179 patients were operated on. In 140 of the operated patients, the diagnosis of appendicitis was confirmed by histopathology. The negative appendectomy rate was 11.4%. Specificity and negative predictive value of RIPASA score were higher than those of Alvarado (p<0.001). No difference was found between the two scores concerning sensitivity, positive predictive value, and the area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (p>0.05). Conclusion The RIPASA scoring system can be used as an alternative to the Alvarado scoring system in the management of patients with right lower quadrant pain in emergency services and pediatric outpatient clinics. With the use of the RIPASA score, more patients with a low likelihood of appendicitis can be detected and further contributed to the reduction of the negative appendectomy rate.

COMPARISON OF ALVARADO SCORE AND RIPASA SCORE IN THE ACCURATE DIAGNOSIS OF ACUTE APPENDICITIS IN COMBINED MILITARY HOSPITAL RAWALPINDI

Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of Alvarado score and the RIPASA score for acute appendicitis using histopathology as a gold standard. Study Design: Cross sectional validation study. Place and Duration of Study: Department of General Surgery, Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi Pakistan, from Mar to Sep 2018. Methodology: A total number of 270 patients were included in the study presenting with pain right iliac fossa to the Accident and Emergency department. Surgeons and Seniors Residents in Surgery on call in the Accident and Emergency Department. Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi, scored the patients with suspicion of acute appendicitis with Alvarado Score and RIPASA score simultaneously. After appendectomy of these patients, the removed appendix was sent for histopathology to confirm whether it was normal or inflamed. A 2x2 table was used for calculating sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of the RIPASA score and Alvarado Score. The two scoring systems were then compared for diagnostic accuracy. Results: In our study, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of RIPASA score and Alvarado score for diagnosing acute appendicitis were 92.1%, 62.1%, 95.2%, 48.6%, 88.9% and 72.6%, 68.9%, 95.1%, 23.2%, 72.2% respectively. Conclusion: The diagnostic accuracy of RIPASA score was more than that of Alvarado score in diagnosing acute appendicitis.