阿尔瓦拉多评分、Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha 阑尾炎评分和超声波检查诊断急性阑尾炎的比较:前瞻性研究

IF 0.2 Q4 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Journal of Clinical Sciences Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.4103/jcls.jcls_25_23
Mohan Lal, Anil Kumar, P. Chandawat
{"title":"阿尔瓦拉多评分、Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha 阑尾炎评分和超声波检查诊断急性阑尾炎的比较:前瞻性研究","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

背景:人们发明了不同的方法来诊断急性阑尾炎,以便在诊断不明确的情况下提供帮助。在不同的人群和医疗环境中使用不同的成像和评分方法时,准确度也不尽相同。超声波成像(USG)是一种广泛使用且安全的成像技术,但它依赖于操作者。由于 USG、Alvarado 评分和 Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis(RIPASA)评分从未进行过全面比较,因此我们对患有右髂窝疼痛并被认为患有急性阑尾炎的人进行了练习。方法采用评估评分表,包括两个评分表的所有要素,以及 USG 结果、人口统计学数据和组织学报告。确定并比较两种评分和 USG 的特异性、敏感性、阴性预测值、阳性预测值、预测的阑尾切除阴性率和诊断准确性。结果:与阿尔瓦拉多评分和 USG(分别为 75.46% 和 71.78%)相比,RIPASA 评分的诊断准确率高达 89.57%,明显更高。根据 USG、Alvarado 和 RIPASA 评分,预测的阑尾切除阴性率分别为 17.82%、9.195% 和 6.48%。结论RIPASA 评分是一种经济实惠、值得信赖、可重复使用的诊断工具,在检测急性阑尾炎方面具有很高的准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of Alvarado score, Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis score, and ultrasonography for diagnosing acute appendicitis: A prospective study
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Sciences
Journal of Clinical Sciences MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
45 weeks
期刊最新文献
Erratum: Fall risks and health-related quality of life among elderly attending primary healthcare centers in South Western Nigeria: A cross-sectional study Intensive care management of sniper (organophosphate) poisoning secondary to deliberate self-harm: A case report The Journal of Clinical Sciences: From humble beginnings to a dissemination force of scientific research Comparison of Alvarado score, Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis score, and ultrasonography for diagnosing acute appendicitis: A prospective study Neck circumference and cardiometabolic syndrome in adult patients at a tertiary hospital in Lagos, Nigeria: A cross-sectional study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1