Comparison of Alvarado score, Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis score, and ultrasonography for diagnosing acute appendicitis: A prospective study
{"title":"Comparison of Alvarado score, Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis score, and ultrasonography for diagnosing acute appendicitis: A prospective study","authors":"Mohan Lal, Anil Kumar, P. Chandawat","doi":"10.4103/jcls.jcls_25_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Different methods for diagnosing acute appendicitis have been invented to help amid equivocal instances. Different levels of accuracy have been noted when the imaging and scores were utilized in diverse populations and health-care contexts. Ultrasonography (USG) is a widely accessible and safe imaging technique, but it is operator dependent. Since USG, Alvarado scores, and Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) score have never been thoroughly compared, we practiced them to people who suffered from right iliac fossa pain and were thought to have acute appendicitis. Methods: Evaluation scoring sheets, including all the elements of both scores, as well as USG findings, demographic data, and histological reports, were employed. Specificity, sensitivity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, predicted negative appendectomy rate, and diagnostic accuracy for both scores as well as USG were determined and compared. Results: As compared to the Alvarado score and USG (75.46% and 71.78%, respectively), the RIPASA score's diagnostic accuracy of 89.57% was significantly higher. According to the USG, Alvarado, and RIPASA scores, the predicted negative appendectomy rates were 17.82%, 9.195%, and 6.48%, respectively. Conclusion: The RIPASA score is an affordable, trustworthy, repeatable diagnostic tool with high accuracy for the detection of acute appendicitis.","PeriodicalId":15490,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Sciences","volume":"49 1","pages":"80 - 86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcls.jcls_25_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Different methods for diagnosing acute appendicitis have been invented to help amid equivocal instances. Different levels of accuracy have been noted when the imaging and scores were utilized in diverse populations and health-care contexts. Ultrasonography (USG) is a widely accessible and safe imaging technique, but it is operator dependent. Since USG, Alvarado scores, and Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) score have never been thoroughly compared, we practiced them to people who suffered from right iliac fossa pain and were thought to have acute appendicitis. Methods: Evaluation scoring sheets, including all the elements of both scores, as well as USG findings, demographic data, and histological reports, were employed. Specificity, sensitivity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, predicted negative appendectomy rate, and diagnostic accuracy for both scores as well as USG were determined and compared. Results: As compared to the Alvarado score and USG (75.46% and 71.78%, respectively), the RIPASA score's diagnostic accuracy of 89.57% was significantly higher. According to the USG, Alvarado, and RIPASA scores, the predicted negative appendectomy rates were 17.82%, 9.195%, and 6.48%, respectively. Conclusion: The RIPASA score is an affordable, trustworthy, repeatable diagnostic tool with high accuracy for the detection of acute appendicitis.