比较 Tzanakis 和 Alvarado 评分诊断急性阑尾炎的准确性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

{"title":"比较 Tzanakis 和 Alvarado 评分诊断急性阑尾炎的准确性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.surge.2024.04.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objectives</h3><p>Acute appendicitis is one of the most commonly encountered surgical emergencies on a global level. Due to the requirement of an immediate clinical diagnosis and the presence of limited resources, clinicians and diagnosticians refer to scoring systems to diagnose this condition, among which Alvarado and Tzanakis scoring systems are widely used. This meta-analysis aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy of these two systems.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span>We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and SCOPUS databases. All studies that reported diagnostic parameters of Alvarado and Tzanakis scores in patients with suspected acute </span>appendicitis were selected. Diagnostic values such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy were extracted from the selected studies and statistical analysis was performed with Meta Disc 1.4 software. Quality assessment of the selected studies was performed using the QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C tools. Fourteen studies were included in our meta-analysis which enrolled 2235 patients.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The overall sensitivity of the Tzanakis score was calculated as 0.86 (95% CI; 0.84-00.87) while the specificity was 0.73 (95% CI; 0.69–0.78). In addition, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.9261 (SE; 0.0169) and the diagnostic Odds Ratio (OR) was 22.52 (95% CI; 9.47–53.56). The pooled sensitivity of Alvarado score was 0.67 (95% CI; 0.65–0.69) and the specificity was 0.74 (95% CI; 0.69–0.79). Moreover, the area under the curve (AUC) of the Alvarado score was 0.7389 (SE; 0.0489) and the diagnostic Odds Ratio was 4.92 (95% CI; 2.48–9.75).</p></div><div><h3>Interpretation and conclusion</h3><p>The Tzanakis scoring system has a higher sensitivity, area under the curve, and diagnostic odds ratio when compared to the Alvarado score. However, the Alvarado score has a marginally better specificity making it more reliable in excluding acute appendicitis.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49463,"journal":{"name":"Surgeon-Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland","volume":"22 5","pages":"Pages e164-e170"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of the accuracy of Tzanakis and Alvarado Score in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.surge.2024.04.013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and objectives</h3><p>Acute appendicitis is one of the most commonly encountered surgical emergencies on a global level. Due to the requirement of an immediate clinical diagnosis and the presence of limited resources, clinicians and diagnosticians refer to scoring systems to diagnose this condition, among which Alvarado and Tzanakis scoring systems are widely used. This meta-analysis aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy of these two systems.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span>We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and SCOPUS databases. All studies that reported diagnostic parameters of Alvarado and Tzanakis scores in patients with suspected acute </span>appendicitis were selected. Diagnostic values such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy were extracted from the selected studies and statistical analysis was performed with Meta Disc 1.4 software. Quality assessment of the selected studies was performed using the QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C tools. Fourteen studies were included in our meta-analysis which enrolled 2235 patients.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The overall sensitivity of the Tzanakis score was calculated as 0.86 (95% CI; 0.84-00.87) while the specificity was 0.73 (95% CI; 0.69–0.78). In addition, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.9261 (SE; 0.0169) and the diagnostic Odds Ratio (OR) was 22.52 (95% CI; 9.47–53.56). The pooled sensitivity of Alvarado score was 0.67 (95% CI; 0.65–0.69) and the specificity was 0.74 (95% CI; 0.69–0.79). Moreover, the area under the curve (AUC) of the Alvarado score was 0.7389 (SE; 0.0489) and the diagnostic Odds Ratio was 4.92 (95% CI; 2.48–9.75).</p></div><div><h3>Interpretation and conclusion</h3><p>The Tzanakis scoring system has a higher sensitivity, area under the curve, and diagnostic odds ratio when compared to the Alvarado score. However, the Alvarado score has a marginally better specificity making it more reliable in excluding acute appendicitis.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49463,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgeon-Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland\",\"volume\":\"22 5\",\"pages\":\"Pages e164-e170\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgeon-Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1479666X24000453\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgeon-Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1479666X24000453","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:急性阑尾炎是全球最常见的外科急症之一。由于需要立即进行临床诊断,且资源有限,临床医生和诊断人员会参考评分系统来诊断这种疾病,其中 Alvarado 和 Tzanakis 评分系统被广泛使用。本荟萃分析旨在比较这两种系统的诊断准确性:我们检索了 PubMed、Google Scholar 和 SCOPUS 数据库。方法:我们检索了 PubMed、Google Scholar 和 SCOPUS 数据库,选择了所有报告了 Alvarado 和 Tzanakis 评分对疑似急性阑尾炎患者诊断参数的研究。从所选研究中提取敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值(NPV)和诊断准确性等诊断值,并使用 Meta Disc 1.4 软件进行统计分析。使用 QUADAS-2 和 QUADAS-C 工具对所选研究进行了质量评估。我们的荟萃分析纳入了 14 项研究,共纳入 2235 名患者:经计算,Tzanakis 评分的总体灵敏度为 0.86(95% CI;0.84-00.87),特异度为 0.73(95% CI;0.69-0.78)。此外,曲线下面积(AUC)为 0.9261(SE;0.0169),诊断率(OR)为 22.52(95% CI;9.47-53.56)。阿尔瓦拉多评分的汇总灵敏度为 0.67 (95% CI; 0.65-0.69),特异度为 0.74 (95% CI; 0.69-0.79)。此外,阿尔瓦拉多评分的曲线下面积(AUC)为 0.7389(SE;0.0489),诊断率为 4.92(95% CI;2.48-9.75):与阿尔瓦拉多评分相比,Tzanakis 评分系统具有更高的灵敏度、曲线下面积和诊断几率比。然而,阿尔瓦拉多评分的特异性稍好,因此在排除急性阑尾炎方面更可靠。
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
A comparison of the accuracy of Tzanakis and Alvarado Score in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and objectives

Acute appendicitis is one of the most commonly encountered surgical emergencies on a global level. Due to the requirement of an immediate clinical diagnosis and the presence of limited resources, clinicians and diagnosticians refer to scoring systems to diagnose this condition, among which Alvarado and Tzanakis scoring systems are widely used. This meta-analysis aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy of these two systems.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and SCOPUS databases. All studies that reported diagnostic parameters of Alvarado and Tzanakis scores in patients with suspected acute appendicitis were selected. Diagnostic values such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy were extracted from the selected studies and statistical analysis was performed with Meta Disc 1.4 software. Quality assessment of the selected studies was performed using the QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C tools. Fourteen studies were included in our meta-analysis which enrolled 2235 patients.

Results

The overall sensitivity of the Tzanakis score was calculated as 0.86 (95% CI; 0.84-00.87) while the specificity was 0.73 (95% CI; 0.69–0.78). In addition, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.9261 (SE; 0.0169) and the diagnostic Odds Ratio (OR) was 22.52 (95% CI; 9.47–53.56). The pooled sensitivity of Alvarado score was 0.67 (95% CI; 0.65–0.69) and the specificity was 0.74 (95% CI; 0.69–0.79). Moreover, the area under the curve (AUC) of the Alvarado score was 0.7389 (SE; 0.0489) and the diagnostic Odds Ratio was 4.92 (95% CI; 2.48–9.75).

Interpretation and conclusion

The Tzanakis scoring system has a higher sensitivity, area under the curve, and diagnostic odds ratio when compared to the Alvarado score. However, the Alvarado score has a marginally better specificity making it more reliable in excluding 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
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
158
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Since its establishment in 2003, The Surgeon has established itself as one of the leading multidisciplinary surgical titles, both in print and online. The Surgeon is published for the worldwide surgical and dental communities. The goal of the Journal is to achieve wider national and international recognition, through a commitment to excellence in original research. In addition, both Colleges see the Journal as an important educational service, and consequently there is a particular focus on post-graduate development. Much of our educational role will continue to be achieved through publishing expanded review articles by leaders in their field. Articles in related areas to surgery and dentistry, such as healthcare management and education, are also welcomed. We aim to educate, entertain, give insight into new surgical techniques and technology, and provide a forum for debate and discussion.
期刊最新文献
Enhancements in artificial intelligence for medical examinations: A leap from ChatGPT 3.5 to ChatGPT 4.0 in the FRCS trauma & orthopaedics examination. A boost to concentration or a distracting noise? A systematic review of surgeon and anaesthetist perspectives of the benefit of intra-operative music. List of editors Surgeon ability to predict physical activity and sedentary time: Comparison of self-reported and measured activity Sensitivity and specificity of surgeons' intra-operative diagnosis of appendicitis. A systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
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