Dergiler / Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 6

The Karaman score: A new diagnostic score for acute appendicitis

Karaman skoru: Akut apandisit tanısında yeni bir skorlama sistemi

Sayfa
545–551
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

CONCLUSION: The Karaman score was more predictive than the Alvarado score in distinguishing acute appendicitis from a negative appendectomy

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:BACKGROUND: The Karaman score is a novel diagnostic scoring system consisting of 6 parameters.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The aim of the present study was to assess the diagnostic performance of the Karaman score in comparison with the Alvarado score.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:CONCLUSION: The Karaman score was more predictive than the Alvarado score in distinguishing acute appendicitis from a negative appendectomy
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

BACKGROUND: The Karaman score is a novel diagnostic scoring system consisting of 6 parameters. The aim of the present study was to assess the diagnostic performance of the Karaman score in comparison with the Alvarado score. METHODS: A total of 200 patients who underwent an appendectomy were enrolled in the study (research registry number: 2290). RESULTS: The cutoff threshold of the Karaman score in distinguishing acute appendicitis from negative appendectomy was ≥9 with 84.3% sensitivity, 64.7% specificity, 92.1% positive predictive value (PPV), and 45.8% negative predictive value (NPV). The cutoff threshold of the Alvarado score in distinguishing acute appendicitis from negative appendectomy was ≥8 with 72.9% sensitivity, 70.6% specificity, 92.4% PPV, and 34.8% NPV. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, an Alvarado ≥8 score (Odds ratio [OR]:6.644, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.854–15.466; p<0.001) and a Karaman ≥9 score (OR:10.374, 95% CI: 4.383–24.558; p<0.001) were each individually predictive in distinguishing acute appendicitis from negative appendectomy when correction was made according to age and gender. However, when both scores were evaluated together, the Alvarado score ≥8 lost its efficacy (OR:1.838, 95% CI: 0.517–6.530; p=0.347), whereas the Karaman score ≥9 retained its predictive power (OR:6.586, 95% CI: 1.893–22.917; p=0.003). CONCLUSION: The Karaman score was more predictive than the Alvarado score in distinguishing acute appendicitis from a negative appendectomy

Abstract

AMAÇ: Karaman skorlama sistemi akut apandisit tanısında kullanılan ve 6 parametreden oluşan yeni bir tanısal skorlama sistemidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı Karaman skorunun akut apandisit tanı performansını Alvarado skoru ile karşılaştırmalı olarak ortaya koymaktır. GEREÇ VE YÖNTEM: Akut apandisit tanısı ile apendektomi yapılan 200 hasta çalışmaya alındı. BULGULAR: Karaman skorunun akut apandisiti negatif apandektomiden ayırmadaki kestirim değeri ≥9 olup, sensitivitesi %84.3, spesifitesi %64.7, pozitif prediktif değeri %92.1 ve negatif prediktif değeri %45.8 olarak saptandı. Alvarado skorunun akut apandisiti negatif apandektomiden ayırmadaki kestirim değeri ise ≥8 olup, sensitivitesi %72.9, spesifitesi %70.6, pozitif prediktif değeri %92.4 ve negatif prediktif değeri %34.8 olarak saptandı. Multilojistik regreyon analizinde, yaş ve cinsiyete göre düzeltme yapıldığında; hem Alvarado ≥8 (OR=6.644, %95 CI: 2.854–15.466, p<0.001) hem de Karaman ≥9 skoru (OR=10.374, %95 CI: 4.383–24.558, p<0.001) akut apandisiti negatif apandektomiden ayırmada anlamlı olarak etkin saptandı. Ancak, her iki skor bir arada değerlendirildiğinde, Alvarado skoru ≥8 etkinliğini yitirirken (OR=1.838, %95 CI: 0.517–6.530 and p=0.347) Karaman skoru ≥9 prediktif etkinliğini göstermeye devam etmekteydi (OR=6.586, %95 CI: 1.893–22.917, p=0.003). TARTIŞMA: Karaman skoru akut apandisiti negatif apandektomiden ayırt etmede daha etkin saptanmıştır.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

KARAMAN, K., ERCAN, M., DEMİR, H., YALKIN, Ö., UZUNOĞLU, Y., GÜNDOĞDU, K., ZENGİN, İ., AKSOY, Y., BOSTANCI, E. (2018). The Karaman score: A new diagnostic score for acute appendicitis. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 6, 545–551. https://ajindex.com/articles/324700

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (15)

  1. Addiss DG, Shaffer N, Fowler BS, Tauxe RV. The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. Am J Epidemiol 1990
  2. 910–25. [CrossRef ] 2. Lee YJ, Kim B, Ko Y, Cho KE, Hong SS, Kim DH, et al. Low-Dose (2-mSv) CT in Adolescents and Young Adults With Suspected Appendicitis: Advantages of Additional Review of Thin Sections Using Multiplanar Sliding-Slab Averaging Technique. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015
  3. W485–91. [CrossRef ] 3. Duke E, Kalb B, Arif-Tiwari H, Daye ZJ, Gilbertson-Dahdal D, Keim SM, et al. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of MRI for Evaluation of Acute Appendicitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016
  4. 508–17. [CrossRef ] 4. Al-Abed YA, Alobaid N, Myint F. Diagnostic markers in acute appendicitis. Am J Surg 2015
  5. 1043–7. [CrossRef ] 5. Alvarado A. A practical score for the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med 1986
  6. 555–64. [CrossRef ] 6. Andersson RE. Meta-analysis of the clinical and laboratory diagnosis of appendicitis. Br J Surg 2004
  7. 28–37. [CrossRef ] 7. Bates MF, Khander A, Steigman SA, Tracy TF Jr, Luks FI. Use of white blood cell count and negative appendectomy rate. Pediatrics 2014
  8. e39–44. [CrossRef ] 8. Shogilev DJ, Duus N, Odom SR, Shapiro NI. Diagnosing appendicitis: evidence-based review of the diagnostic approach in 2014. West J Emerg Med 2014
  9. 859–71. [CrossRef ] 9. Yang HR, Wang YC, Chung PK, Chen WK, Jeng LB, Chen RJ. Laboratory tests in patients with acute appendicitis. ANZ J Surg 2006
  10. 71–4. 10. Andersson RE, Hugander AP, Ghazi SH, Ravn H, Offenbartl SK, Nyström PO, et al. Diagnostic value of disease history, clinical presentation, and inflammatory parameters of appendicitis. World J Surg 1999
  11. 133–40. [CrossRef ] 11. Fergusson JA, Hitos K, Simpson E. Utility of white cell count and ultrasound in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. ANZ J Surg 2002
  12. 781– 5. [CrossRef ] 12. Cardall T, Glasser J, Guss DA. Clinical value of the total white blood cell count and temperature in the evaluation of patients with suspected appendicitis. Acad Emerg Med 2004
  13. 1021–7. [CrossRef ] 13. Petroianu A. Diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Int J Surg 2012
  14. 115–9. 14. Andersson RE, Hugander A, Ravn H, Offenbartl K, Ghazi SH, Nyström PO, et al. Repeated clinical and laboratory examinations in patients with an equivocal diagnosis of appendicitis. World J Surg 2000
  15. 479–85. 15. Ebell MH. Diagnosis of appendicitis: part 1. History and physical examination. Am Fam Physi