↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic Accuracy of Abdominal Ultrasound for Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis: Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgery, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 Mendeley
Title
Diagnostic Accuracy of Abdominal Ultrasound for Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis: Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
Published in
World Journal of Surgery, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00268-016-3792-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vanja Giljaca, Tin Nadarevic, Goran Poropat, Vesna Stefanac Nadarevic, Davor Stimac

Abstract

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of abdominal ultrasound (US) for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA), in terms of sensitivity, specificity and post-test probabilities for positive and negative result. A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane library and Science Citation Index Expanded from January 1994 to October 2014 was performed. Two authors independently evaluated studies for inclusion, extracted data and performed analyses. The reference standard for evaluation of final diagnosis was pathohistological report on tissue obtained at appendectomy. Summary sensitivity, specificity and post-test probability of AA after positive and negative result of US with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Out of 3306 references identified through electronic searches, 17 reports met the inclusion criteria, with 2841 included participants. The summary sensitivity and specificity of US for diagnosis of AA were 69% (95% CI 59-78%) and 81% (95% CI 73-88%), respectively. At the median pretest probability of AA of 76.4%, the post-test probability for a positive and negative result of US was 92% (95% CI 88-95%) and 55% (95% CI 46-63%), respectively. Abdominal ultrasound does not seem to have a role in the diagnostic pathway for diagnosis of AA in suspected patients. The summary sensitivity and specificity of US do not exceed that of physical examination. Patients that require additional diagnostic workup should be referred to more sensitive and specific diagnostic procedures, such as computed tomography.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 151 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 12%
Researcher 16 10%
Other 15 10%
Student > Postgraduate 15 10%
Other 28 18%
Unknown 40 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 87 57%
Engineering 4 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Arts and Humanities 2 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 45 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 January 2017.
All research outputs
#2,201,804
of 25,947,988 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#248
of 4,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,291
of 418,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#11
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,947,988 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,627 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 418,903 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.