The Alvarado Score Is the Most Impactful Diagnostic Tool for Appendicitis: A Bibliometric Analysis

Swedish national guidelines for diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is one of the most common causes of acute abdominal pain. Differences in the management of this large group of patients has important consequences for the patients and the healthcare system. Controversies regarding the understanding of the natural course of the disease, the utility of new diagnostic methods, and alternative treatments have lead to large variations in practice patterns between centres. These national guidelines present evidence-based recommendations aiming at a uniform, safe and cost-efficient management of this large group of patients.

METHOD

A working group of six experts with broad clinical and research experience was formed. Additional expertise from outside was consulted during the process. A national survey revealed significant variations in the management of patients with suspicion of appendicitis. The evidence provided in published guidelines and reviews were extracted and systematically graded, according to the GRADE methodology. This was supplemented by additional more recent and more directed search of the literature. Patients treated for appendicitis were involved through interviews. The guidelines were reviewed by external experts before the final version was determined.

RESULTS

The guidelines cover an extensive number of issues: pathology, epidemiology, aetiology, natural history, clinical and laboratory diagnosis, diagnostic scoring systems, diagnostic imaging, treatment, nursing care, follow-up, quality registers and quality indicators, among others. Special considerations related to children and pregnant women are covered.

CONCLUSION

These national guidelines present an extensive and thorough review of the current knowledge base related to appendicitis, and provide up-to-date evidence-based recommendations for the management of this large group of patients.

Diagnostic value of the appendicitis inflammatory response (AIR) score. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical scoring algorithms are cost efficient in patients with suspicion of acute appendicitis. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic properties of the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score compared with the Alvarado score.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases were searched for reports on the diagnostic properties of the AIR score from 2008 to July 18, 2024. A meta-analysis of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area and the sensitivity and specificity for all and advanced appendicitis patients was performed. Advanced appendicitis was defined as perforated or gangrenous appendicitis or appendicitis abscess or phlegmon or if described as complicated appendicitis. The risk of bias was estimated via the QUADAS-2 tool. The ROC areas of the AIR score and the Alvarado score were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 26 reports with a total of 15.699 patients were included. The area under the ROC curve for the AIR score was 0.86 (95% CI 0.83-0.88) for all patients with appendicitis and 0.93 (CI 0.91-0.96) for those with advanced appendicitis, which was greater than the corresponding areas for the Alvarado score (0.79, CI 0.76; 0.81) and 0.88, CI 0.82; 0.95), respectively. At > 4 points, the sensitivity was 0.91 (CI 0.88; 0.94) for all patients with appendicitis and 0.95 (CI 0.94; 0.97) for those with advanced appendicitis. At > 3 points, the sensitivity was 0.95 (0.90; 0.97) for all patients with appendicitis and 0.99 (0.97; 0.99) for those with advanced appendicitis. At > 8 points, the specificity was 0.98 (0.97; 0.99) for all patients with appendicitis and 0.99 (0.97; 0.99) for those with advanced appendicitis. The included studies had a low risk for bias and low heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

The AIR score has a better diagnostic capacity than the Alvarado score does. The AIR score is a safe and efficient basis for risk-stratified management of patients suspected of having appendicitis.

Clinical decision rules for appendicitis are not used by surgeons in training: A survey

BACKGROUNDS

We aimed to investigate surgeons in training knowledge of clinical decision rules (CDR) for diagnosing appendicitis and their attitudes toward implementing them.

METHODS

We included surgeons in training practicing in East Denmark who independently could decide to perform a diagnostic laparoscopy for suspected appendicitis. The survey was developed in Research Electronic Data Capture and face-validated before use. It consisted of three parts: (1) the characteristics of the surgeons, (2) their diagnostic approach, and (3) their knowledge and attitude toward introducing CDR in the clinic. Data were collected in January 2023.

RESULTS

We achieved 83 (90%) responses, and 52% of surgeons in training believed that appendicitis was difficult to diagnose. Their diagnostic approach mostly included symptoms and physical examinations for abdominal pain, and C-reactive protein. A total of 48% knew of at least one clinical decision rule, and 72% had never used a clinical decision rule. Regarding the necessity of CDR in clinical practice, surgeons in training options were divided into thirds: not needed, neither needed nor not needed, and needed. Surgeons in training indicated that CDR needed to be validated and easily applied before they would implement them.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 3/4 of surgeons in training had never utilized a clinical decision rule to diagnose appendicitis, and only half knew of their existence. The symptoms and findings incorporated in most CDR aligned with their diagnostic approach. They were conflicted if CDR needed to be implemented in clinical practice.