We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
REVIEW
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
A systematic review of whether oral contrast is necessary for the computed tomography diagnosis of appendicitis in adults.
American Journal of Surgery 2005 September
BACKGROUND: There are several methods of contrast administration when performing computed tomography (CT) scanning for suspected appendicitis. In this systematic review we evaluated the diagnostic performance of CT with and without contrast material.
METHODS: Twenty-three reports were identified using a Medline search.
RESULTS: The aggregated diagnostic performance characteristics of all modes of CT scanning were excellent with a range of sensitivity (83--97%), specificity (93--98%), positive predictive value (86--98%), negative predictive value (94--99%), and accuracy (92--97%). The diagnostic performance of CT without oral contrast was similar (sensitivity, 95% vs. 92% [not statistically significant]; negative predictive value, 96% for both protocols) or surprisingly better (specificity, 97% vs. 94%; positive predictive value, 97% vs. 89%; accuracy, 96% vs. 92%; P<.0001) than with oral contrast.
CONCLUSIONS: Noncontrast CT techniques to diagnose appendicitis showed equivalent or better diagnostic performance compared with CT scanning with oral contrast. A prospective comparative trial of CT with and without oral contrast for appendicitis should be performed to assess the adequacy of this modality.
METHODS: Twenty-three reports were identified using a Medline search.
RESULTS: The aggregated diagnostic performance characteristics of all modes of CT scanning were excellent with a range of sensitivity (83--97%), specificity (93--98%), positive predictive value (86--98%), negative predictive value (94--99%), and accuracy (92--97%). The diagnostic performance of CT without oral contrast was similar (sensitivity, 95% vs. 92% [not statistically significant]; negative predictive value, 96% for both protocols) or surprisingly better (specificity, 97% vs. 94%; positive predictive value, 97% vs. 89%; accuracy, 96% vs. 92%; P<.0001) than with oral contrast.
CONCLUSIONS: Noncontrast CT techniques to diagnose appendicitis showed equivalent or better diagnostic performance compared with CT scanning with oral contrast. A prospective comparative trial of CT with and without oral contrast for appendicitis should be performed to assess the adequacy of this modality.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app