» Articles » PMID: 11945180

Systematic Quantitative Overviews of the Literature to Determine the Value of Diagnostic Tests for Predicting Acute Appendicitis: Study Protocol

Overview
Journal BMC Surg
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2002 Apr 12
PMID 11945180
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Suspected acute appendicitis is the most frequent cause for emergency operations in visceral surgery worldwide. In approximately twenty percent of all cases however, the diagnosis is incorrect and patients undergo surgery without having acute appendicitis. Operations of bland appendices put patients at risk and entail a serious waste of resources. Several highly accurate tests have been introduced to diagnose acute appendicitis. The false positive rate however, has not changed over the last twenty years. Given the variation that exists in both practice and research, the uncertainty regarding the quality of the underlying evidence, there is a clear need for comprehensive, systematic and quantitative overviews of the diagnostic value of the various tests purported to be predictive of acute appendicitis.

Methods: Literature will be identified searching general bibliographic databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE), specialist computer databases (DARE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, conference proceedings, MEDION, SCISEARCH, BIOSIS) without language restrictions. We will contact experts and the manufacturers of tests. Hand-searching will complete our searches. Identified articles will be selected according to populations, tests, outcomes and study design. Papers meeting the selection criteria will be appraised to rate their methodological quality. Analysis will include exploration of heterogeneity in results. We will conduct meta-analyses to generate summary estimates of test accuracy measures and summary ROC curves where appropriate. If meta-analysis is considered to be inappropriate, we will describe the identified evidence in the context of appraised quality.

Discussion: These reviews should lead to formulation of recommendations for current practice and future research.

Citing Articles

Diagnosis of acute appendicitis in children using urinary 5-hydroxy indol acetic acid and pediatric appendicitis score: A randomized control trial.

Khirallah M, Abdel Ghafar M Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021; 65:102274.

PMID: 33898036 PMC: 8058523. DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102274.


Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in endocrinology: an audit of methods, reporting, and performance.

Spencer-Bonilla G, Ospina N, Rodriguez-Gutierrez R, Brito J, Iniguez-Ariza N, Tamhane S Endocrine. 2017; 57(1):18-34.

PMID: 28585154 DOI: 10.1007/s12020-017-1298-1.


The Value of Ultrasonography, Leukocyte Count and Clinical Results in Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis and the Duration of Stay of the Patients in Emergency Department.

Eryigit V, Mahsanlar Y, Demirtas Y, Parlak I Turk J Emerg Med. 2016; 14(1):20-4.

PMID: 27331161 PMC: 4909867. DOI: 10.5505/1304.7361.2014.59251.


Should appendectomy be performed laparoscopically? Clinical prospective randomized trial.

Mantoglu B, Karip B, Mestan M, Iscan Y, Agca B, Altun H Ulus Cerrahi Derg. 2015; 31(4):224-8.

PMID: 26668531 PMC: 4674044. DOI: 10.5152/UCD.2015.2843.


Usefulness of DWI in preoperative assessment of deep myometrial invasion in patients with endometrial carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Das S, Niu X, Wang J, Zeng L, Wang W, Bhetuwal A Cancer Imaging. 2015; 14:32.

PMID: 25608571 PMC: 4331837. DOI: 10.1186/s40644-014-0032-y.


References
1.
Irwig L, Macaskill P, Glasziou P, Fahey M . Meta-analytic methods for diagnostic test accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995; 48(1):119-30; discussion 131-2. DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00099-c. View

2.
Irwig L, Tosteson A, Gatsonis C, Lau J, Colditz G, CHALMERS T . Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med. 1994; 120(8):667-76. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-120-8-199404150-00008. View

3.
Reid M, Lachs M, Feinstein A . Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good. JAMA. 1995; 274(8):645-51. View

4.
Vamvakas E . Meta-analyses of studies of the diagnostic accuracy of laboratory tests: a review of the concepts and methods. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998; 122(8):675-86. View

5.
Lijmer J, Mol B, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel G, Prins M, van der Meulen J . Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA. 1999; 282(11):1061-6. DOI: 10.1001/jama.282.11.1061. View