2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of RIPASA and ALVARADO scores for risk assessment of acute appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          In the last decades, several clinical scores have been developed and currently used to improve the diagnosis and risk management of patients with suspected acute appendicitis (AA). However, some of them exhibited different values of sensitivity and specificity. We conducted a systematic review and metanalysis of epidemiological studies, which compared RIPASA and Alvarado scores for the diagnosis of AA.

          Methods

          This systematic review was conducted using PubMed and Web of Science databases. Selected studies had to compare RIPASA and Alvarado scores on patients with suspected AA and reported diagnostic parameters. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated by the Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Curve (HSROC) using STATA 17 (STATA Corp, College Station, TX) and MetaDiSc (version 1.4) software.

          Results

          We included a total of 33 articles, reporting data from 35 studies. For the Alvarado score, the Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Curve (HSROC) model produced a summary sensitivity of 0.72 (95%CI = 0.66–0.77), and a summary specificity of 0.77 (95%CI = 0.70–0.82). For the RIPASA score, the HSROC model produced a summary sensitivity of 0.95 (95%CI = 0.92–0.97), and a summary specificity of 0.71 (95%CI = 0.60–0.80).

          Conclusion

          RIPASA score has higher sensitivity, but low specificity compared to Alvarado score. Since these scoring systems showed different sensitivity and specificity parameters, it is still necessary to develop novel scores for the risk assessment of patients with suspected AA.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.

            In 2003, the QUADAS tool for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies was developed. Experience, anecdotal reports, and feedback suggested areas for improvement; therefore, QUADAS-2 was developed. This tool comprises 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain is assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first 3 domains are also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Signalling questions are included to help judge risk of bias. The QUADAS-2 tool is applied in 4 phases: summarize the review question, tailor the tool and produce review-specific guidance, construct a flow diagram for the primary study, and judge bias and applicability. This tool will allow for more transparent rating of bias and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis: 2020 update of the WSES Jerusalem guidelines

              Background and aims Acute appendicitis (AA) is among the most common causes of acute abdominal pain. Diagnosis of AA is still challenging and some controversies on its management are still present among different settings and practice patterns worldwide. In July 2015, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) organized in Jerusalem the first consensus conference on the diagnosis and treatment of AA in adult patients with the intention of producing evidence-based guidelines. An updated consensus conference took place in Nijemegen in June 2019 and the guidelines have now been updated in order to provide evidence-based statements and recommendations in keeping with varying clinical practice: use of clinical scores and imaging in diagnosing AA, indications and timing for surgery, use of non-operative management and antibiotics, laparoscopy and surgical techniques, intra-operative scoring, and peri-operative antibiotic therapy. Methods This executive manuscript summarizes the WSES guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of AA. Literature search has been updated up to 2019 and statements and recommendations have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. The statements were voted, eventually modified, and finally approved by the participants to the consensus conference and by the board of co-authors, using a Delphi methodology for voting whenever there was controversy on a statement or a recommendation. Several tables highlighting the research topics and questions, search syntaxes, and the statements and the WSES evidence-based recommendations are provided. Finally, two different practical clinical algorithms are provided in the form of a flow chart for both adults and pediatric (< 16 years old) patients. Conclusions The 2020 WSES guidelines on AA aim to provide updated evidence-based statements and recommendations on each of the following topics: (1) diagnosis, (2) non-operative management for uncomplicated AA, (3) timing of appendectomy and in-hospital delay, (4) surgical treatment, (5) intra-operative grading of AA, (6) ,management of perforated AA with phlegmon or abscess, and (7) peri-operative antibiotic therapy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Data curationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                30 September 2022
                2022
                : 17
                : 9
                : e0275427
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies "GF Ingrassia", University of Catania, Catania, Italy
                [2 ] Department of General Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, University of Catania, Catania, Italy
                Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, NIGERIA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4405-8162
                Article
                PONE-D-22-21559
                10.1371/journal.pone.0275427
                9524677
                895533cf-7080-48bb-a499-bc5ed2ce70ed
                © 2022 Favara et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 1 August 2022
                : 16 September 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 2, Pages: 13
                Funding
                The authors received no specific funding for this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Gastroenterology and Hepatology
                Appendicitis
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Systematic Reviews
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Diagnostic Medicine
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
                Statistical Methods
                Metaanalysis
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Statistics
                Statistical Methods
                Metaanalysis
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Medical Risk Factors
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Clinical Medicine
                Signs and Symptoms
                Pain
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Clinical Medicine
                Signs and Symptoms
                Pain
                Abdominal Pain
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Research Reporting Guidelines
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article