We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Systematic Review
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin, C-reactive protein and white blood cell count for suspected acute appendicitis.
British Journal of Surgery 2013 Februrary
BACKGROUND: The aim was to evaluate the diagnostic value of procalcitonin, C-reactive protein (CRP) and white blood cell count (WBC) in uncomplicated or complicated appendicitis by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: The Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched, along with reference lists of relevant articles, without language restriction, to September 2012. Original studies were selected that reported the performance of procalcitonin alone or in combination with CRP or WBC in diagnosing appendicitis. Test performance characteristics were summarized using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and bivariable random-effects models.
RESULTS: Seven qualifying studies (1011 suspected cases, 636 confirmed) from seven countries were identified. Bivariable pooled sensitivity and specificity were 33 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 21 to 47) and 89 (78 to 95) per cent respectively for procalcitonin, 57 (39 to 73) and 87 (58 to 97) per cent for CRP, and 62 (47 to 74) and 75 (55 to 89) per cent for WBC. ROC curve analysis showed that CRP had the highest accuracy (area under ROC curve 0·75, 95 per cent c.i. 0·71 to 0·78), followed by WBC (0·72, 0·68 to 0·76) and procalcitonin (0·65, 0·61 to 0·69). Procalcitonin was found to be more accurate in diagnosing complicated appendicitis, with a pooled sensitivity of 62 (33 to 84) per cent and specificity of 94 (90 to 96) per cent.
CONCLUSION: Procalcitonin has little value in diagnosing acute appendicitis, with lower diagnostic accuracy than CRP and WBC. However, procalcitonin has greater diagnostic value in identifying complicated appendicitis. Given the imperfect accuracy of these three variables, new markers for improving medical decision-making in patients with suspected appendicitis are highly desirable.
METHODS: The Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched, along with reference lists of relevant articles, without language restriction, to September 2012. Original studies were selected that reported the performance of procalcitonin alone or in combination with CRP or WBC in diagnosing appendicitis. Test performance characteristics were summarized using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and bivariable random-effects models.
RESULTS: Seven qualifying studies (1011 suspected cases, 636 confirmed) from seven countries were identified. Bivariable pooled sensitivity and specificity were 33 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 21 to 47) and 89 (78 to 95) per cent respectively for procalcitonin, 57 (39 to 73) and 87 (58 to 97) per cent for CRP, and 62 (47 to 74) and 75 (55 to 89) per cent for WBC. ROC curve analysis showed that CRP had the highest accuracy (area under ROC curve 0·75, 95 per cent c.i. 0·71 to 0·78), followed by WBC (0·72, 0·68 to 0·76) and procalcitonin (0·65, 0·61 to 0·69). Procalcitonin was found to be more accurate in diagnosing complicated appendicitis, with a pooled sensitivity of 62 (33 to 84) per cent and specificity of 94 (90 to 96) per cent.
CONCLUSION: Procalcitonin has little value in diagnosing acute appendicitis, with lower diagnostic accuracy than CRP and WBC. However, procalcitonin has greater diagnostic value in identifying complicated appendicitis. Given the imperfect accuracy of these three variables, new markers for improving medical decision-making in patients with suspected appendicitis are highly desirable.
Full text links
Related Resources
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