Assessing the Accuracy of Diagnostic Imaging for Pediatric Appendicitis During the Course of Illness

Children's Mercy Hospitals and Clinics and the Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Missouri, Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City, MO. Electronic address: .
Annals of emergency medicine (Impact Factor: 4.68). 07/2012; 60(5):603-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.07.001
Source: PubMed
8 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine why many diagnostic tests have proved to be valueless after optimistic introduction into medical practice, we reviewed a series of investigations and identified two major problems that can cause erroneous statistical results for the "sensitivity" and "specificity" indexes of diagnostic efficacy. Unless an appropriately broad spectrum is chosen for the diseased and nondiseased patients who comprise the study population, the diagnostic test may receive falsely high values for its "rule-in" and "rule-out" performances. Unless the interpretation of the test and the establishment of the true diagnosis are done independently, bias may falsely elevate the test's efficacy. Avoidance of these problems might have prevented the early optimism and subsequent disillusionment with the diagnostic value of two selected examples: the carcinoembryonic antigen and nitro-blue tetrazolium tests.
    New England Journal of Medicine 11/1978; 299(17):926-30. DOI:10.1056/NEJM197810262991705 · 55.87 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Test-performance characteristics can be derived from a simple 2x2 table displaying the dichotomous relationship between a positive or negative test result and the presence or absence of a target disorder. Sensitivity and specificity, including a summary display of their reciprocal relationship as a receiver operating characteristics curve, are relatively stable test characteristics. Unfortunately, they represent an inversion of customary clinical logic and fail to tell us precisely what we wish to know. Predictive values, on the other hand, provide us with the requisite information but-because they are vulnerable to variation in disease prevalence-are numerically unstable. Likelihood ratios (LRs), in contrast, combine the stability of sensitivity and specificity to provide an omnibus index of test performance far more useful than its constituent parts. Application of Bayes' theorem to LRs produces the following summary equation: Clinically estimated pretest odds of disease x LR=Posttest odds of disease. This simple equation illustrates a concordance between the mathematical properties of likelihood ratios and the central strategy underlying diagnostic testing: the revision of disease probability.
    Annals of Emergency Medicine 03/1998; 31(3):391-7. DOI:10.1016/S0196-0644(98)70352-X · 4.68 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of ultrasonography (US) and computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of appendicitis in pediatric and adult populations. Medical literature (from 1986 to 2004) was searched for articles on studies that used US, CT, or both as diagnostic tests for appendicitis in children (26 studies, 9356 patients) or adults (31 studies, 4341 patients). Prospective and retrospective studies were included if they separately reported the rate of true-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative diagnoses of appendicitis from US and CT findings compared with the positive and negative rates of appendicitis at surgery or follow-up. Clinical variables, technical factors, and test performance were extracted. Three readers assessed the quality of studies. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of appendicitis in children were 88% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 86%, 90%) and 94% (95% CI: 92%, 95%), respectively, for US studies and 94% (95% CI: 92%, 97%) and 95% (95% CI: 94%, 97%), respectively, for CT studies. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis in adults were 83% (95% CI: 78%, 87%) and 93% (95% CI: 90%, 96%), respectively, for US studies and 94% (95% CI: 92%, 95%) and 94% (95% CI: 94%, 96%), respectively, for CT studies. From the diagnostic performance perspective, CT had a significantly higher sensitivity than did US in studies of children and adults; from the safety perspective, however, one should consider the radiation associated with CT, especially in children.
    Radiology 11/2006; 241(1):83-94. DOI:10.1148/radiol.2411050913 · 6.87 Impact Factor