We have located links that may give you full text access.
Patient gender-related performance of nonfocused helical computed tomography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.
Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography 2003 July
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of patient gender on the performance of helical computed tomography (CT) in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 1, 1996 to December 31, 2000, 650 consecutive nonfocused helical abdominal CT scans were performed in adult patients presenting with acute lower abdominal pain. In general, most patients received both intravenous and oral contrast with 5-mm scan collimation through the lower abdomen and pelvis; details regarding technique and overall accuracy have been published previously. We subanalyzed results with respect to patient gender-related differences, especially in false-positive and false-negative cases. A chi2 analysis was performed to determine if significant gender-related differences were present in major or minor CT diagnostic criteria for acute appendicitis, extra-appendiceal findings, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy.
RESULTS: Of the 650 patients, 552 had adequate clinical follow-up. The sensitivity for diagnosing acute appendicitis was 100% (65/65) in men and 93.6% (74/79) in women (P < 0.05); specificity was 96.2% (130/135) in men and 98.9% (272/275) in women (P > 0.05); and accuracy was 97.5% (193/198) in men and 97.6% in women (346/354) (P > 0.05). A thickened appendix and periappendiceal stranding were seen in 92.1% of men and 84.5% of women (P = 0.15) All 5 false-negative results were in thin women. In patients without acute appendicitis, CT was able to provide a relevant alternative diagnosis in 183 of 272 women (67.3%) and 81 of 130 men (62.3%) (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Nonfocused helical CT was highly accurate for diagnosing acute appendicitis in both men and women, although there was a slight but significant decrease in sensitivity in thin women.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 1, 1996 to December 31, 2000, 650 consecutive nonfocused helical abdominal CT scans were performed in adult patients presenting with acute lower abdominal pain. In general, most patients received both intravenous and oral contrast with 5-mm scan collimation through the lower abdomen and pelvis; details regarding technique and overall accuracy have been published previously. We subanalyzed results with respect to patient gender-related differences, especially in false-positive and false-negative cases. A chi2 analysis was performed to determine if significant gender-related differences were present in major or minor CT diagnostic criteria for acute appendicitis, extra-appendiceal findings, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy.
RESULTS: Of the 650 patients, 552 had adequate clinical follow-up. The sensitivity for diagnosing acute appendicitis was 100% (65/65) in men and 93.6% (74/79) in women (P < 0.05); specificity was 96.2% (130/135) in men and 98.9% (272/275) in women (P > 0.05); and accuracy was 97.5% (193/198) in men and 97.6% in women (346/354) (P > 0.05). A thickened appendix and periappendiceal stranding were seen in 92.1% of men and 84.5% of women (P = 0.15) All 5 false-negative results were in thin women. In patients without acute appendicitis, CT was able to provide a relevant alternative diagnosis in 183 of 272 women (67.3%) and 81 of 130 men (62.3%) (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Nonfocused helical CT was highly accurate for diagnosing acute appendicitis in both men and women, although there was a slight but significant decrease in sensitivity in thin women.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
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