DOI 10.1007/s00268-008-9649-y
Abstract
Background The clinical diagnosis of appendicitis is a
subjective synthesis of information from variables with illdefined diagnostic value. This process could be improved
by using a scoring system that includes objective variables
that reflect the inflammatory response. This study describes
the construction and evaluation of a new clinical appendicitis score.
Methods Data were collected prospectively from 545
patients admitted for suspected appendicitis at four hospitals. The score was constructed from eight variables with
independent diagnostic value (right-lower-quadrant pain,
rebound tenderness, muscular defense, WBC count, proportion neutrophils, CRP, body temperature, and vomiting)
in 316 randomly selected patients and evaluated on the
remaining 229 patients. Ordered logistic regression was
used to obtain a high discriminating power with focus on
advanced appendicitis. Diagnostic performance was compared with the Alvarado score.
Results The ROC area of the new score was 0.97 for
advanced appendicitis and 0.93 for all appendicitis compared with 0.92 (p = 0.0027) and 0.88 (p = 0.0007),
respectively, for the Alvarado score. Sixty-three percent of
the patients were classified into the low- or high-probability group with an accuracy of 97.2%, leaving 37% for
further investigation. Seventy-three percent of the nonappendicitis patients, 67% of the advanced appendicitis, and
M. Andersson (&) R. E. Andersson
Department of Surgery, County Hospital Ryhov,
551 85 Jonkoping, Sweden
e-mail: manne.andersson@lj.se
R. E. Andersson
Department of Surgery, University Hospital,
581 85 Linkoping, Sweden
Introduction
Acute appendicitis (AA) is a common condition and a frequently suspected differential diagnosis in patients presenting
with acute abdominal pain. The diagnosis is often elusive and
the management of patients with an equivocal diagnosis is
controversial. Some advocate early surgical exploration on
wide indications hoping to prevent perforation, with an
associated high frequency of negative explorations as an
acceptable tradeoff [1]. Others propose early exploration in
patients with obvious disease and active observation of
patients with an equivocal diagnosis, which gives fewer
negative explorations without increasing the number of perforations [25]. In this latter approach it is important to detect
patients with advanced appendicitis early [6].
Imaging techniques such as ultrasound (US) and computerized tomography (CT) and diagnostic laparoscopy
have been used with the hope of yielding a rapid and
accurate diagnosis. The main problems with routine use of
diagnostic imaging are potentially harmful ionizing radiation (CT), examiner-dependent efficacy (US), and
technique-associated morbidity (diagnostic laparoscopy)
[7]. Diagnostic imaging performs less well in groups of
patients with low or high prevalence of disease in spite of
high sensitivity and specificity [8].
123
1844
123
1845
Simplified score
A simplified score was constructed based on the regression
coefficients which were rounded up to the nearest integer,
except for pain in the right iliac fossa which had a
regression coefficient close to 1 and light rebound pain/
muscular defense, which were rounded down to obtain a
trend of increasing risk of appendicitis with increasing
intensity in this variable.
Statistical methods
Weighted ordered logistic regression analysis was used in the
construction of the scores to identify the variables with an
independent predicting capacity and to obtain the variables
scoring weights. The ROC area was used for comparing the
Table 1 Characteristics of the
patients in the construction and
validation samples
Results
Characteristic
Number of patients
Construction sample
Validation sample
p value
316
229
Men
145 (46%)
105 (46%)
Women
171 (54%)
124 (54%)
0.994
25.9
23.4
0.022
115 (36%)
76 (33%)
71 (22%)
46 (20%)
44 (14%)
30 (13%)
0.731
36 (11%)
5.1
23 (10%)
5.2
0.735
123
1846
Table 2 The new scores and the Alvarado score for comparison
Score
Proposed score
Regression
Simplified
Alvarado
Relocation of pain
ns
+1
Vomiting
0.45
+1
+1
Patients
Pain in RIF
1.12
+1
+2
All appendicitis
Anorexia
ns
+1
Male gender
ns
Regression
0.913 0.003
0.922 0.024
0.913 0.0007
0.927 0.0007
Advanced appendicitis
0
1.54
0
+1
0
+1
Medium
1.90
+2
+1
Strong
2.32
+3
+1
37.537.9C
+1
38.038.4C
+1
0.85
+1
+1
Body temperature
C38.5C
Simplified
0.965 0.0004
0.961 0.0004
Validation sample
0.962 0.037
0.972 0.0027
0.924
Numbers Alvarado
score
Simplified
score
p
value
Men
105
0.850
0.917
0.0021
Women
124
0.914
0.935
0.27
0.16
0.59
7074%
0.92
+1
7584%
0.92
+1
+1
Gender
C85%
1.41
+2
+1
WBC count
10.014.9 9 109/L
0.96
+1
+2
C15.0 9 109/L
1.46
+2
+2
Age
CRP concentration
1049 g/L
012 years
49
0.925
0.977
1.04
+1
1329 years
124
0.892
0.925
0.053
2.35
+2
30+ years
56
0.814
0.889
0.02
0.25
0.058
C50 g/L
123
0.13
1847
Simplified
score
Alvarado
score
29
23
Advanced appendicitis
20
12
Diagnostic value
Phlegmonous
Negative appendectomy
8
1
9
2
All appendicitis
Nonoperated
85
110
Score = 58 = Indeterminate
result
Advanced appendicitis
10
18
Sensitivity
Simplified score
Alvarado score
[4 points
[8 points
[4 points
[8 points
0.96
0.37*
0.97
0.28*
Specificity
0.73
0.99
0.61
PV+
0.64
0.97
0.56
0.99
0.91
PV-
0.97
0.76
0.98
0.73
Advanced appendicitis
Phlegmonous
35
35
Negative appendectomy
13
12
Sensitivity
1.00
0.67
1.00
0.40
Nonoperated
27
45
Specificity
0.73
0.99
0.61
0.99
115
96
PV+
0.42
0.95
0.34
0.86
PV-
1.00
0.94
1.00
0.89
0
3
9
103
9
85
* p = 0.07,
p \ 0.0007,
p \ 0.005
Discussion
The scoring system presented in this study could correctly
classify 73% of the nonappendicitis patients to the lowprobability group and 67% of the patients with advanced
appendicitis to the high-probability group with high accuracy. Only 37% of the patients remained in the
indeterminate group. This compares favorably with the
Alvarado score which gave 61, 40, and 48% for the corresponding results. This shows the potential of our clinical
scoring system to improve the clinical diagnosis of
appendicitis and to decrease the number of patients that
need in-hospital observation or further examination with
diagnostic imaging or diagnostic laparoscopy.
A clinical scoring system estimates the probability of
appendicitis in a patient compared with a large number of
similar patients from which the score was designed. This
information can be used for decision support for the less
experienced surgeon and may facilitate communication
between emergency room physicians and surgeons. A
clinical scoring system can also be the basis for a structured
management of patients with suspected appendicitis as
described in Table 7. Today it is common practice to
perform CT or US in all patients suspected of having
appendicitis. However, imaging does not perform well in
patients with low and high prevalence of the disease, and
CT should be used selectively to minimize exposure to
ionizing radiation [8]. Recent reports also suggest that the
indiscriminate use of CT scans may lead to the detection of
low-grade appendicitis that would otherwise have resolved
spontaneously [1618].
A clinical score may therefore be a suitable instrument
for selecting patients for immediate surgery, observation at
123
1848
Light
Medium
Strong
Body teperature C38.5
Polymorphonuclear leukocytes
WBC count
CRP concentration
3
1
7084%
C85%
10.014.9 9 109/L
C15.0 9 109/L
1049 g/L
C50 g/L
Sum (012)
Sum 04 = Low probability. Outpatient follow-up if unaltered general condition
Sum 58 = Indeterminate group. In-hospital active observation with
rescoring/imaging or diagnostic laparoscopy according to local
traditions
Sum 912 = High probability. Surgical exploration is proposed
123
References
1. Velanovich V, Satava R (1992) Balancing the normal appendectomy rate with the perforated appendicitis rate: implications
for quality assurance. Am Surg 58:264269
2. Andersson R, Hugander A, Thulin A et al (1994) Indications for
operation in suspected appendicitis and incidence of perforation.
BMJ 308:107110
3. Bachoo P, Mahomed AA, Ninan GK et al (2001) Acute appendicitis: the continuing role for active observation. Pediatr Surg Int
17:125128
4. Kirby CP, Sparnon AL (2001) Active observation of children
with possible appendicitis does not increase morbidity. ANZ J
Surg 71:412413
5. Jones PF (2001) Suspected acute appendicitis: trends in management over 30 years. Br J Surg 88:15701577
6. Andersson RE (2007) The natural history and traditional management of appendicitis revisited: spontaneous resolution and
predominance of prehospital perforations imply that a correct
diagnosis is more important than an early diagnosis. World J Surg
31:8692
7. Saville LE, Woods MS (1995) Laparoscopy and major retroperitoneal vascular injuries (MRVI). Surg Endosc 9:10961100
8. Terasawa T, Blackmore CC, Bent S et al (2004) Systematic
review: computed tomography and ultrasonography to detect
acute appendicitis in adults and adolescents. Ann Intern Med
141:537546
1849
16. Petrosyan M, Estrada J, Chan S et al (2007) CT scan in patients
with suspected appendicitis: clinical implications for the acute
care surgeon. Eur Surg Res 40:211219
17. Livingston EH, Woodward WA, Sarosi GA et al (2007) Disconnect between incidence of nonperforated and perforated
appendicitis: implications for pathophysiology and management.
Ann Surg 245:886892
18. Andersson RE (2008) Resolving appendicitis is common: further
evidence. Ann Surg 247:553
19. Andersson RE, Hugander A, Ravn H et al (2000) Repeated
clinical and laboratory examinations in patients with an equivocal
diagnosis of appendicitis. World J Surg 24:479485
20. Graff L, Radford MJ, Werne C (1991) Probability of appendicitis
before and after observation. Ann Emerg Med 20:503507
123