Ohmann C, Yang Q, Franke C
Theoretical Surgery Unit, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Eur J Surg. 1995 Apr;161(4):273-81.
To assess the value of predictive scores in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.
Multicentre evaluation with a prospective database.
1254 patients with acute abdominal pain.
6 departments of surgery, Germany.
To measure the performance of 10 scores on one database using standardised criteria and to compare the results with published data.
The ability of a score to fulfill standardised criteria: an initial negative appendicectomy rate of 15% or less, a potential perforation rate of 35% or less, an initial missed perforation rate of 15% or less, and a missed appendicitis rate of 5% or less.
Reevaluation of the published data showed that the Alvarado score fulfilled all four criteria and the Lindberg, the Fenyö and the Christian scores fulfilled two criteria each. If applied to our database (acute abdominal pain, suspected appendicitis), none of the scores fulfilled any of the given criteria, even if the cut-off point was varied systematically. There were significant differences among the scores.
The original published data seemed to comply with our standardised criteria but evaluation of the scores on our database resulted in poor performances for all of them. Published data seem to be optimistically biased whereas our evaluation gives more realistic estimates of the routine performance in different clinical environments. Further well designed large scale trials are needed to investigate the clinical benefit of diagnostic scoring in acute appendicitis.
评估预测评分在急性阑尾炎诊断中的价值。
采用前瞻性数据库进行多中心评估。
1254例急性腹痛患者。
德国6个外科科室。
使用标准化标准在一个数据库中评估10种评分的性能,并将结果与已发表的数据进行比较。
一种评分满足标准化标准的能力:初始阴性阑尾切除率为15%或更低,潜在穿孔率为35%或更低,初始漏诊穿孔率为15%或更低,漏诊阑尾炎率为5%或更低。
对已发表数据的重新评估表明,阿尔瓦拉多评分满足所有四项标准,林德伯格、费尼奥和克里斯蒂安评分各满足两项标准。如果应用于我们的数据库(急性腹痛,疑似阑尾炎),即使系统地改变临界值,也没有一种评分满足任何给定标准。各评分之间存在显著差异。
最初发表的数据似乎符合我们的标准化标准,但在我们的数据库中对这些评分进行评估时,所有评分的表现都很差。已发表的数据似乎存在乐观偏差,而我们的评估对不同临床环境中的常规表现给出了更现实的估计。需要进一步设计良好的大规模试验来研究急性阑尾炎诊断评分的临床益处。