Many diagnostic tools for appendicitis: a scoping review

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningfagfællebedømt

Standard

Many diagnostic tools for appendicitis : a scoping review. / Bahta, Nadir Noureldin Abdella; Rosenberg, Jacob; Fonnes, Siv.

I: Surgical Endoscopy, Bind 37, Nr. 5, 2023, s. 3419-3429.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningfagfællebedømt

Harvard

Bahta, NNA, Rosenberg, J & Fonnes, S 2023, 'Many diagnostic tools for appendicitis: a scoping review', Surgical Endoscopy, bind 37, nr. 5, s. 3419-3429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-09890-2

APA

Bahta, N. N. A., Rosenberg, J., & Fonnes, S. (2023). Many diagnostic tools for appendicitis: a scoping review. Surgical Endoscopy, 37(5), 3419-3429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-09890-2

Vancouver

Bahta NNA, Rosenberg J, Fonnes S. Many diagnostic tools for appendicitis: a scoping review. Surgical Endoscopy. 2023;37(5):3419-3429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-09890-2

Author

Bahta, Nadir Noureldin Abdella ; Rosenberg, Jacob ; Fonnes, Siv. / Many diagnostic tools for appendicitis : a scoping review. I: Surgical Endoscopy. 2023 ; Bind 37, Nr. 5. s. 3419-3429.

Bibtex

@article{1b7ff286366941209f79bfb0a234001d,
title = "Many diagnostic tools for appendicitis: a scoping review",
abstract = "Background: We aimed to provide an overview of all diagnostic tools developed to diagnose appendicitis with their reported accuracy and to further characterize these including their need for diagnostic equipment. Methods: This scoping review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews and a protocol was registered at Open Science Framework. We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, {\'I}ndice Bibliogr{\'a}fico Espanhol de Ci{\^e}ncias da Sa{\'u}de, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature. We included original articles of all languages with the purpose to derive an accessible diagnostic tool. We extracted data regarding study- and diagnostic tool characteristics, and the accuracy of each diagnostic tool. Results: The search led to 6419 records, where 74 studies were included, yielding 82 diagnostic tools reported in seven different languages. Among these tools, 35% included patient characteristics, 85% symptoms, 93% physical examinations, 37% vital signs, 78% laboratory values, and 16% imaging. Among the diagnostic tools, 35% relied on a medical doctor/surgeon with access to a laboratory, and six diagnostic tools did not require a bedside medical doctor/surgeon. The median positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity across diagnostic tools were 91%, 94%, 89%, and 86%, respectively. Conclusions: We identified 82 diagnostic tools that most frequently were based on symptoms and physical examinations. Most diagnostic tools relied on a medical doctor/surgeon with access to laboratory values. The accuracy was high across the diagnostic tools. Graphical abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.].",
keywords = "Appendicitis, Diagnostic tools, Index, Scoping review, Score",
author = "Bahta, {Nadir Noureldin Abdella} and Jacob Rosenberg and Siv Fonnes",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.",
year = "2023",
doi = "10.1007/s00464-023-09890-2",
language = "English",
volume = "37",
pages = "3419--3429",
journal = "Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques",
issn = "0930-2794",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Many diagnostic tools for appendicitis

T2 - a scoping review

AU - Bahta, Nadir Noureldin Abdella

AU - Rosenberg, Jacob

AU - Fonnes, Siv

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

PY - 2023

Y1 - 2023

N2 - Background: We aimed to provide an overview of all diagnostic tools developed to diagnose appendicitis with their reported accuracy and to further characterize these including their need for diagnostic equipment. Methods: This scoping review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews and a protocol was registered at Open Science Framework. We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Índice Bibliográfico Espanhol de Ciências da Saúde, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature. We included original articles of all languages with the purpose to derive an accessible diagnostic tool. We extracted data regarding study- and diagnostic tool characteristics, and the accuracy of each diagnostic tool. Results: The search led to 6419 records, where 74 studies were included, yielding 82 diagnostic tools reported in seven different languages. Among these tools, 35% included patient characteristics, 85% symptoms, 93% physical examinations, 37% vital signs, 78% laboratory values, and 16% imaging. Among the diagnostic tools, 35% relied on a medical doctor/surgeon with access to a laboratory, and six diagnostic tools did not require a bedside medical doctor/surgeon. The median positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity across diagnostic tools were 91%, 94%, 89%, and 86%, respectively. Conclusions: We identified 82 diagnostic tools that most frequently were based on symptoms and physical examinations. Most diagnostic tools relied on a medical doctor/surgeon with access to laboratory values. The accuracy was high across the diagnostic tools. Graphical abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.].

AB - Background: We aimed to provide an overview of all diagnostic tools developed to diagnose appendicitis with their reported accuracy and to further characterize these including their need for diagnostic equipment. Methods: This scoping review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews and a protocol was registered at Open Science Framework. We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Índice Bibliográfico Espanhol de Ciências da Saúde, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature. We included original articles of all languages with the purpose to derive an accessible diagnostic tool. We extracted data regarding study- and diagnostic tool characteristics, and the accuracy of each diagnostic tool. Results: The search led to 6419 records, where 74 studies were included, yielding 82 diagnostic tools reported in seven different languages. Among these tools, 35% included patient characteristics, 85% symptoms, 93% physical examinations, 37% vital signs, 78% laboratory values, and 16% imaging. Among the diagnostic tools, 35% relied on a medical doctor/surgeon with access to a laboratory, and six diagnostic tools did not require a bedside medical doctor/surgeon. The median positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity across diagnostic tools were 91%, 94%, 89%, and 86%, respectively. Conclusions: We identified 82 diagnostic tools that most frequently were based on symptoms and physical examinations. Most diagnostic tools relied on a medical doctor/surgeon with access to laboratory values. The accuracy was high across the diagnostic tools. Graphical abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.].

KW - Appendicitis

KW - Diagnostic tools

KW - Index

KW - Scoping review

KW - Score

U2 - 10.1007/s00464-023-09890-2

DO - 10.1007/s00464-023-09890-2

M3 - Review

C2 - 36735050

AN - SCOPUS:85147379126

VL - 37

SP - 3419

EP - 3429

JO - Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques

JF - Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques

SN - 0930-2794

IS - 5

ER -

ID: 371275967