• A Zielke, H Sitter, T A Rampp, E Schäfer, C Hasse, W Lorenz, and M Rothmund.
• Klinik für Allgemeinchirurgie, Philipps-Universität Marburg. zielke@mailer.uni-marburg.de
• Chirurg. 1999 Jul 1;70(7):777-83; discussion 784.

AbstractA diagnostic scoring system, recently published by Ohmann et al. in this journal, was validated by analyzing the clinicopathological data of a consecutive series of 2,359 patients, admitted for suspicion of acute appendicitis. The results of the scoring system were compared to the results of clinical evaluation by junior (provisional) and senior surgeons (final clinical diagnosis). To assess the diagnostic ability of the score, the accuracy and positive predictive value were defined as the major diagnostic performance parameters; the rate of theoretical negative laparotomies and that of diagnostic errors served as the major procedural performance parameters. Of 2,359 patients admitted for suspected acute appendicitis, 662 were proven to have acute appendicitis by histology, for a prevalence of 28%. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of the provisional clinical diagnosis were 0.50, 0.94, 0.77, 0.83, and 0.82; 0.93, for the score 0.63, 0.93, 0.77, 0.86 and 0.84, and for the final clinical diagnosis 0.90, 0.94, 0.85, 0.96, and 0.93, respectively. Of the main diagnostic performance parameter, the accuracy of the score was significantly better than that of provisional clinical diagnosis (P < 0.05, chi 2 test). The score yielded a rate of negative appendecomies and laparotomies of 14.3 and 12.3%. With respect to the rate of overlooked cases of acute apendicitis, the score demonstrated a superior performance, with only 6 cases missed (0.9%). However, the number of patients with acute appendicitis, including those with perforated disease, who were not identified by the score, was almost four times that of the final clinical diagnosis (245 vs 63). With regard to the main procedural performance parameter, the score resulted in a significantly smaller number of diagnostic errors than the provisional clinical investigator (P < 0.05, chi 2 test). The results of this study indicate that the diagnostic scoring system might be helpful when experienced investigators or additional diagnostic modalities such as ultrasonography are not available. It may therefore be of value in the preclinical evaluation of patients with suspected acute appendicitis and may be instrumental as a quality control tool and in clinical guidelines.

18 keywords...

hide…