Franke C, Ohmann C, Yang Q
Heinrich Heine Universität, Düsseldorf.
Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl Kongressbd. 1998;115(Suppl I):511-5.
The clinical benefit of a diagnostic score for acute appendicitis was tested in a prospective interventional multicenter study on patients with abdominal pain. The study was performed in two consecutive phases: standard diagnostic work-up with no additional diagnostic support (870 patients) and additional diagnostic support with a score (614 patients). The two groups were comparable with respect to signs, symptoms and investigations related to acute appendicitis. Diagnostic performance of the final examiner decreased with the score: specificity from 86% to 78%, positive predictive value from 67% to 50% and accuracy from 88% to 81%. There were no differences in the perforated appendix, negative appendectomy and complication rate, however, the delayed appendectomy rate (2% versus 8%) and the delayed discharge rate (11% versus 22%) were significantly lower with diagnostic support by the score. In summary, the score cannot be recommended as a standard diagnostic tool for diagnostic decision making in acute appendicitis.
在一项针对腹痛患者的前瞻性干预多中心研究中,对急性阑尾炎诊断评分的临床益处进行了测试。该研究分两个连续阶段进行:无额外诊断支持的标准诊断检查(870例患者)和使用评分的额外诊断支持(614例患者)。两组在与急性阑尾炎相关的体征、症状和检查方面具有可比性。最终检查者的诊断性能随评分下降:特异性从86%降至78%,阳性预测值从67%降至50%,准确性从88%降至81%。穿孔性阑尾炎、阴性阑尾切除术和并发症发生率没有差异,然而,使用评分进行诊断支持时,延迟阑尾切除术发生率(2%对8%)和延迟出院率(11%对22%)显著更低。总之,该评分不能被推荐作为急性阑尾炎诊断决策的标准诊断工具。