NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Structured Abstract
Background:
The reliable identification of patients with abdominal pain who need surgical intervention for acute appendicitis can improve clinical outcomes and reduce resource use. The test performance and impact on outcomes of alternative diagnostic strategies are unclear.
Study eligibility criteria:
We searched PubMed®, Embase®, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature® to identify primary research studies meeting our criteria for cohort studies that reported information on test accuracy for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis or harms, and for comparative studies (randomized or nonrandomized) that reported information on patient-relevant outcomes and resource use (last search, August 6, 2014, for PubMed; August 12, 2014, for all other databases).
Study appraisal and synthesis methods:
A single investigator extracted data from each study and a second investigator verified extracted data from comparative studies; we also extracted data in duplicate for a sample of noncomparative studies. We performed Bayesian meta-analyses to estimate summary test performance using random-effects models; data on other outcomes were synthesized qualitatively. We also assessed the strength and applicability of the evidence.
Results:
Information on the test performance of diagnostic tests was available from 903 studies: clinical symptoms and signs (137 studies), laboratory tests (217 studies), imaging tests (519 studies), multivariable diagnostic scores (127 studies), and diagnostic laparoscopy (55 studies). Trials directly comparing diagnostic tests were too heterogeneous to support definitive conclusions; therefore, most of our results pertain to the test performance of individual tests. Clinical symptoms and signs, and laboratory tests had relatively low sensitivity and specificity when used in isolation. Their combination in multivariable scores performed somewhat better; however, the most studied scores were developed before the widespread use of imaging, thus lessening the applicability of their results to current practice. Computed tomography (CT) had high sensitivity (summary estimates ranging from 0.96 to 1) and specificity (0.91 to 1) in all populations of interest to this report; magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) had high sensitivity (0.94 to 1) but appeared to have variable specificity (0.86 to 1), mainly because of the smaller number of studies, which focused on its use for pregnant women. In adult populations, ultrasound (US) had lower sensitivity (0.85) and specificity (0.90) than CT and MRI, and produced more nondiagnostic scans. In children, the specificity of US was similar to that of CT (0.91 vs. 0.92), but CT had greater sensitivity (0.89 vs. 0.96); these results were based on a large number of studies (85 for US and 34 for CT). In the same patient population, MRI had a specificity of 0.96 and sensitivity of 0.97, but data were derived from only seven studies. Among pregnant women CT, MRI, and US had similar specificity (0.91, 0.98, and 0.95, respectively), but CT and MRI had higher sensitivity than US (0.99, 0.98, and 0.72, respectively). Information on diagnostic test performance among the elderly was limited. Studies of test performance were deemed to be at moderate risk of bias, mostly because of concerns about differential and incomplete verification.
Information on patient-relevant outcomes and resource use was available from a small number of trials with moderate risk of bias that assessed heterogeneous comparisons between various tests and nonrandomized studies that did not appropriately adjust for potential confounding factors. Only a few studies reported information on harms, leading to concerns about selective outcome reporting. Therefore, no definitive conclusions could be drawn about patient-relevant outcomes or harms.
Limitations:
Patient-level data were unavailable, and information about study- or population-level characteristics was too limited to allow the identification of modifiers of test performance, patient-centered outcomes, or harms. Studies reported adverse events incompletely and did not provide details of outcome ascertainment methods.
Conclusions:
The literature on the diagnosis of acute appendicitis is large but consists almost exclusively of studies assessing the performance of individual tests. The evidence on individual tests indicates that imaging tests have adequate test performance, while clinical symptoms and signs and laboratory tests used in isolation have lower discriminatory capacity. The evidence is largely insufficient to support conclusions about comparative effectiveness for clinical outcomes because studies assessing more than two test strategies on the same population are few and have evaluated different test comparisons. More research is needed to evaluate the comparative performance and effectiveness of individual tests, test combinations, and integrated diagnostic algorithms; to identify potential modifiers; and to evaluate the impact of testing strategies on patient-relevant outcomes, resource use, and harms. Decision and simulation models using information from this review could inform the design of future studies and guide decisionmaking.
PROSPERO registration number:
CRD42013006480.
Contents
- Preface
- Key Informants
- Technical Expert Panel
- Peer Reviewers
- Executive Summary
- Background
- Methods
- AHRQ Task Order Officer, Stakeholder Input, and Review Protocol
- Analytic Framework
- Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
- Literature Search and Abstract Screening
- Study Selection and Eligibility Criteria
- Data Abstraction and Management
- Assessment of the Risk of Bias of Individual Studies
- Evidence Synthesis
- Grading the Strength of Evidence
- Assessing Applicability
- Peer Review
- Results
- Key Question 1 What is the performance of alternative diagnostic tests, alone or in combination, for patients with right lower quadrant (RLQ) pain and suspected acute appendicitis?
- Key Question 2 What is the comparative effectiveness of alternative diagnostic tests, alone or in combination, for patients with RLQ pain and suspected acute appendicitis?
- Key Question 3 What are the harms of diagnostic tests per se, and what are the treatment-related harms of test-directed treatment for tests used to diagnose RLQ pain and suspected acute appendicitis?
- Discussion
- References
- Abbreviations
- Appendix A Search Strategies
- Appendix B List of Included and Excluded Studies
- Appendix C Studies Assessing the Test Performance of Clinical Signs and Symptoms, Laboratory and Imaging Tests, and Multivariable Diagnostic Scores
- Appendix D Sensitivity Analyses for Studies of Imaging Tests
- Appendix E Classifiers and Computer-Aided Diagnosis
- Appendix F Risk of Bias Assessment for Studies of Test Performance
Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services1, Contract No. 290-2012-00012-I, Prepared by: Brown Evidence-based Practice Center, Providence, RI
Suggested citation:
Dahabreh IJ, Adam GP, Halladay CW, Steele DW, Daiello LA, Weiland LS, Zgodic A, Smith BT, Herliczek TW, Shah N, Trikalinos TA. Diagnosis of Right Lower Quadrant Pain and Suspected Acute Appendicitis. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 157. (Prepared by the Brown Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2012-00012-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 15(16)-EHC025-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; December 2015. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.
This report is based on research conducted by the Brown Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2012-00012-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.
The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.
AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of any derivative products that may be developed from this report, such as clinical practice guidelines, other quality enhancement tools, or reimbursement or coverage policies, may not be stated or implied.
This report may periodically be assessed for the currency of conclusions. If an assessment is done, the resulting surveillance report describing the methodology and findings will be found on the Effective Health Care Program Web site at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov. Search on the title of the report.
- 1
5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; www
.ahrq.gov
- NLM CatalogRelated NLM Catalog Entries
- Review Core Needle and Open Surgical Biopsy for Diagnosis of Breast Lesions: An Update to the 2009 Report[ 2014]Review Core Needle and Open Surgical Biopsy for Diagnosis of Breast Lesions: An Update to the 2009 ReportDahabreh IJ, Wieland LS, Adam GP, Halladay C, Lau J, Trikalinos TA. 2014 Sep
- Review Imaging Techniques for the Diagnosis and Staging of Hepatocellular Carcinoma[ 2014]Review Imaging Techniques for the Diagnosis and Staging of Hepatocellular CarcinomaChou R, Cuevas C, Fu R, Devine B, Wasson N, Ginsburg A, Zakher B, Pappas M, Graham E, Sullivan S. 2014 Oct
- Review Oral Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Colorectal Surgery[ 2014]Review Oral Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Colorectal SurgeryDahabreh IJ, Steele DW, Shah N, Trikalinos TA. 2014 Apr
- Review Screening for Colorectal Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review[ 2008]Review Screening for Colorectal Cancer: An Updated Systematic ReviewWhitlock EP, Lin J, Liles E, Beil T, Fu R, O'Connor E, Thompson RN, Cardenas T. 2008 Oct
- Review Screening for Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: An Evidence Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force[ 2013]Review Screening for Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: An Evidence Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForceLin JS, O'Connor E, Rossom RC, Perdue LA, Burda BU, Thompson M, Eckstrom E. 2013 Nov
- Diagnosis of Right Lower Quadrant Pain and Suspected Acute AppendicitisDiagnosis of Right Lower Quadrant Pain and Suspected Acute Appendicitis
- Traumatic Brain Injury and DepressionTraumatic Brain Injury and Depression
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...