Comparative Study
Journal Article
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

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

Radiology 2008 October
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.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

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 Toggle icon

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