35
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Modified Alvarado Scoring System as a diagnostic tool for Acute Appendicitis at Bugando Medical Centre, Mwanza, Tanzania

      research-article
      1 , 1 , 2 , 1 ,
      BMC Surgery
      BioMed Central

      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

          Decision-making in patients with acute appendicitis poses a diagnostic challenge worldwide, despite much advancement in abdominal surgery. The Modified Alvarado Scoring System (MASS) has been reported to be a cheap and quick diagnostic tool in patients with acute appendicitis. However, differences in diagnostic accuracy have been observed if the scores were applied to various populations and clinical settings. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of Modified Alvarado Scoring System in patients with acute appendicitis in our setting.

          Methods

          A cross-sectional study involving all patients suspected to have acute appendicitis at Bugando Medical Centre over a six-month period between November 2008 and April 2009 was conducted. All patients who met the inclusion criteria were consecutively enrolled in the study. They were evaluated on admission using the MASS to determine whether they had acute appendicitis or not. All patients underwent appendicectomy according to the hospital protocol. The decision to operate was the prerogative of the surgeon or surgical resident based on overall clinical judgment and not the MASS. The diagnosis was confirmed by histopathological examination. Data was collected using a pre-tested coded questionnaire and analyzed using SPSS statistical computer software.

          Results

          A total number of 127 patients were studied. Their ages ranged from eight to 76 years (mean 29.64 ± 12.97). There were 37 (29.1%) males and 90 (70.9%) females (M: F = 1:2.4). All patients in this study underwent appendicectomy. The perforation rate was 9.4%. Histopathological examination confirmed appendicitis in 85 patients (66.9%) and the remaining 42 patients had normal appendix giving a negative appendicectomy rate of 33.1% (26.8% for males and 38.3% for females). The sensitivity and specificity of MASS in this study were 94.1% (males 95.8% and females 88.3%) and 90.4% (males 92.9% and females 89.7%) respectively. The Positive Predictive Value and Negative Predictive Value were 95.2% (males 95.5% and females 90.6%) and 88.4% (males 89.3% and females 80.1%) respectively. The accuracy of MASS was 92.9% (males 91.5% and females 87.6%).

          Conclusion

          The study shows that use of MASS in patients suspected to have acute appendicitis provides a high degree of diagnostic accuracy and can be employed at Bugando Medical Centre to improve the diagnostic accuracy of acute appendicitis and subsequently reduces negative appendicectomy and complication rates. However, additional investigations may be required to confirm the diagnosis in case of atypical presentation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A practical score for the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

          We conducted a retrospective study of 305 patients hospitalized with abdominal pain suggestive of acute appendicitis. Signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings were analyzed for specificity, sensitivity, predictive value, and joint probability. The total joint probability, the sum of a true-positive and a true-negative result, was chosen as a diagnostic weight indicative of the accuracy of the test. Eight predictive factors were found to be useful in making the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Their importance, according to their diagnostic weight, was determined as follows: localized tenderness in the right lower quadrant, leukocytosis, migration of pain, shift to the left, temperature elevation, nausea-vomiting, anorexia-acetone, and direct rebound pain. Based on this weight, we devised a practical diagnostic score that may help in interpreting the confusing picture of acute appendicitis.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Has misdiagnosis of appendicitis decreased over time? A population-based analysis.

            Misdiagnosis of presumed appendicitis is an adverse outcome that leads to unnecessary surgery. Computed tomography, ultrasonography, and laparoscopy have been suggested for use in patients with equivocal signs of appendicitis to decrease unnecessary surgery. To determine if frequency of misdiagnosis preceding appendectomy has decreased with increased availability of computed tomography, ultrasonography, and laparoscopy. Retrospective, population-based cohort study of data from a Washington State hospital discharge database for 85 790 residents assigned International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision procedure codes for appendectomy, and United States Census Bureau data for 1987-1998. Population-based age- and sex-standardized incidence of appendectomy with acute appendicitis (perforated or not) or with a normal appendix. Among 63 707 nonincidental appendectomy patients, 84.5% had appendicitis (25.8% with perforation) and 15.5% had no associated diagnosis of appendicitis. After adjusting for age and sex, the population-based incidence of unnecessary appendectomy and of appendicitis with perforation did not change significantly over time. Among women of reproductive age, the population-based incidence of misdiagnosis increased 1% per year (P =.005). The incidence of misdiagnosis increased 8% yearly in patients older than 65 years (P<.001) but did not change significantly in children younger than 5 years (P =.17). The proportion of patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy who were misdiagnosed was significantly higher than that of open appendectomy patients (19.6% vs 15.5%; P<.001). Contrary to expectation, the frequency of misdiagnosis leading to unnecessary appendectomy has not changed with the introduction of computed tomography, ultrasonography, and laparoscopy, nor has the frequency of perforation decreased. These data suggest that on a population level, diagnosis of appendicitis has not improved with the availability of advanced diagnostic testing.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Diagnostic scores for acute appendicitis. Abdominal Pain Study Group.

              To assess the value of predictive scores in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Multicentre evaluation with a prospective database. 1254 patients with acute abdominal pain. 6 departments of surgery, Germany. To measure the performance of 10 scores on one database using standardised criteria and to compare the results with published data. The ability of a score to fulfill standardised criteria: an initial negative appendicectomy rate of 15% or less, a potential perforation rate of 35% or less, an initial missed perforation rate of 15% or less, and a missed appendicitis rate of 5% or less. Reevaluation of the published data showed that the Alvarado score fulfilled all four criteria and the Lindberg, the Fenyö and the Christian scores fulfilled two criteria each. If applied to our database (acute abdominal pain, suspected appendicitis), none of the scores fulfilled any of the given criteria, even if the cut-off point was varied systematically. There were significant differences among the scores. The original published data seemed to comply with our standardised criteria but evaluation of the scores on our database resulted in poor performances for all of them. Published data seem to be optimistically biased whereas our evaluation gives more realistic estimates of the routine performance in different clinical environments. Further well designed large scale trials are needed to investigate the clinical benefit of diagnostic scoring in acute appendicitis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Surg
                BMC Surgery
                BioMed Central
                1471-2482
                2011
                17 February 2011
                : 11
                : 4
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Surgery, Weill-Bugando University Collages of Health Sciences, P.O. Box 1464, Mwanza, Tanzania
                [2 ]Department of Pathology, Weill-Bugando University Collages of Health Sciences, P.O. Box 1464, Mwanza, Tanzania
                Article
                1471-2482-11-4
                10.1186/1471-2482-11-4
                3050681
                21329493
                a0394652-fd01-42d0-b1e9-dddc671d9972
                Copyright ©2011 Kanumba et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 12 August 2010
                : 17 February 2011
                Categories
                Research Article

                Surgery
                Surgery

                Comments

                Comment on this article