Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 49, Issue 6 , Pages 778-784.e1, June 2007

Evaluating Appendicitis Scoring Systems Using a Prospective Pediatric Cohort

Presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies meeting, May 2006, San Francisco, CA.

  • Carisa Schneider, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medicine, Children’s Hospital Boston, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress for correspondence: Carisa Schneider, MD. Department of Medicine, Children’s Hospital Boston, 300 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA 02115. Tel (617) 355-6000
  • ,
  • Anupam Kharbanda, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of New York, Columbia University, New York, NY.
  • ,
  • Richard Bachur, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medicine, Children’s Hospital Boston, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
    • Division of Emergency Medicine, Children’s Hospital Boston, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

Received 24 May 2006; received in revised form 20 July 2006, 14 September 2006, 15 November 2006, 14 December 2006 and 19 December 2006; accepted 20 December 2006. published online 12 April 2007.

Study objective

This article evaluates the performance of the previously published Alvarado and Samuel appendicitis scoring systems in a prospectively identified pediatric cohort.

Methods

A prospective cohort of patients, aged 3 to 21 years, being evaluated for appendicitis was enrolled during 20 consecutive months at a large, urban, pediatric hospital. Study forms were completed by pediatric emergency medicine attending physicians before imaging or surgery. Final diagnosis was determined by pathology or follow-up telephone call. Each score was tested as proposed by the original authors. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated for all patients and prepubertal patients younger than 10 years.

Results

Five hundred eighty-eight patients were studied. The median age was 11.9 years (interquartile range [IQR] 8.5; 14.9 years). Thirty-four percent of patients had appendicitis. An Alvarado score greater than or equal to 7 yielded a sensitivity of 72% (95% confidence interval [CI] 66% to 78%), specificity 81% (76% to 84%), negative predictive value (NPV) 85% (81% to 89%), and positive predictive value (PPV) 65% (59% to 72%). A Samuel score greater than or equal to 6 yielded a sensitivity of 82% (77% to 87%), specificity 65% (60% to 70%), NPV 88% (84% to 91%), and PPV 54% (48% to 60%). When analysis was limited to patients younger than 10 years, n=206, an Alvarado score greater than or equal to 7 yielded a sensitivity of 73% (62% to 84%), specificity 80% (73% to 86%), NPV 89% (83% to 94%), and PPV 58% (45% to 69%). A Samuel score greater than or equal to 6, when patients younger than 10 years were considered, yielded a sensitivity of 77% (66% to 87%), specificity 65% (56% to 72%), NPV 88% (82% to 94%), and PPV 45% (35% to 55%). Receiver operator characteristic curves had an area under the curve of 0.83 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.86) (Alvarado) and 0.81 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.85) (Samuel).

Conclusion

Although the Alvarado and Samuel scores provide measurably useful diagnostic information in evaluating children with suspected appendicitis, neither method provides sufficient PPV to be used in clinical practice as the sole method for determination of the need for surgery.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Supervising editor: David M. Jaffe, MDAuthor contributions: AK and RB conceived the study and designed the trial. AK and RB supervised the conduct of the trial and data collection. AK and RB undertook recruitment of patients and managed the data, including quality control. RB provided statistical advice on study design, RB takes responsibility for all statistical calculations in the manuscript, CS and RB analyzed the data, CD drafted the manuscript, and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. CD, AK and RB take responsibility for the paper as a whole.Funding and support: The authors report this study did not receive any outside funding or support.Publication dates: Available online March 26, 2007.Reprints not available from the authors.

PII: S0196-0644(06)02685-0

doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.12.016

Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 49, Issue 6 , Pages 778-784.e1, June 2007