We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Selective use of ultrasonography for acute appendicitis in children.
American Journal of Surgery 1999 March
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the role of ultrasonography in children with equivocal signs of acute appendicitis, and correlate with initial clinical impression and pathological findings.
METHODS: This is a prospective evaluation of all children presenting with a possible diagnosis of appendicitis during a 14-month study period. Patients with unequivocal clinical signs of appendicitis underwent appendectomy without ultrasonography. Patients with equivocal signs had documentation of the clinical impression and subsequent abdominal ultrasound. Statistical analysis of results was performed using the chi-square test (P <0.05 significant).
RESULTS: Two hundred fifteen consecutive children were enrolled. Signs were unequivocal in 116 and equivocal in 99. Seven patients in the first group had a normal appendix at operation. Of the 99 patients with equivocal signs, there were 28 true positives, 3 false positives, 64 true negatives, and 4 false negatives. In equivocal cases, sensitivity of the initial clinical impression versus ultrasound was 50% and 88%, respectively (P <0.05). Specificity was 85% and 96%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values improved from 63% to 90% and 78% to 94%, respectively, with the use of ultrasonography.
CONCLUSIONS: The low false positive rate (6%) in clinically obvious cases of appendicitis does not, in our opinion, warrant ultrasonography. In clinically equivocal cases, ultrasonography is a fast, sensitive, and specific diagnostic modality to diagnose or rule out appendicitis, avoiding the need for prolonged observation and/or hospitalization.
METHODS: This is a prospective evaluation of all children presenting with a possible diagnosis of appendicitis during a 14-month study period. Patients with unequivocal clinical signs of appendicitis underwent appendectomy without ultrasonography. Patients with equivocal signs had documentation of the clinical impression and subsequent abdominal ultrasound. Statistical analysis of results was performed using the chi-square test (P <0.05 significant).
RESULTS: Two hundred fifteen consecutive children were enrolled. Signs were unequivocal in 116 and equivocal in 99. Seven patients in the first group had a normal appendix at operation. Of the 99 patients with equivocal signs, there were 28 true positives, 3 false positives, 64 true negatives, and 4 false negatives. In equivocal cases, sensitivity of the initial clinical impression versus ultrasound was 50% and 88%, respectively (P <0.05). Specificity was 85% and 96%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values improved from 63% to 90% and 78% to 94%, respectively, with the use of ultrasonography.
CONCLUSIONS: The low false positive rate (6%) in clinically obvious cases of appendicitis does not, in our opinion, warrant ultrasonography. In clinically equivocal cases, ultrasonography is a fast, sensitive, and specific diagnostic modality to diagnose or rule out appendicitis, avoiding the need for prolonged observation and/or hospitalization.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Review article: Recent advances in ascites and acute kidney injury management in cirrhosis.Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2024 March 26
Executive Summary: State-of-the-Art Review: Unintended Consequences: Risk of Opportunistic Infections Associated with Long-term Glucocorticoid Therapies in Adults.Clinical Infectious Diseases 2024 April 11
Clinical practice guidelines on the management of status epilepticus in adults: A systematic review.Epilepsia 2024 April 13
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app