Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Systematic Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of CT Features for Differentiating Complicated and Uncomplicated Appendicitis.

Radiology 2018 April
Purpose To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify computed tomographic (CT) features for differentiating complicated appendicitis in patients suspected of having appendicitis and to summarize their diagnostic accuracy. Materials and Methods Studies on diagnostic accuracy of CT features for differentiating complicated appendicitis (perforated or gangrenous appendicitis) in patients suspected of having appendicitis were searched in Ovid-MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Overlapping descriptors used in different studies to denote the same image finding were subsumed under a single CT feature. Pooled diagnostic accuracy of the CT features was calculated by using a bivariate random effects model. CT features with pooled diagnostic odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals not including 1 were considered as informative. Results Twenty-three studies were included, and 184 overlapping descriptors for various CT findings were subsumed under 14 features. Of these, 10 features were informative for complicated appendicitis. There was a general tendency for these features to show relatively high specificity but low sensitivity. Extraluminal appendicolith, abscess, appendiceal wall enhancement defect, extraluminal air, ileus, periappendiceal fluid collection, ascites, intraluminal air, and intraluminal appendicolith showed pooled specificity greater than 70% (range, 74%-100%), but sensitivity was limited (range, 14%-59%). Periappendiceal fat stranding was the only feature that showed high sensitivity (94%; 95% confidence interval: 86%, 98%) but low specificity (40%; 95% confidence interval, 23%, 60%). Conclusion Ten informative CT features for differentiating complicated appendicitis were identified in this study, nine of which showed high specificity, but low sensitivity. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

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 Toggle icon

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