A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

The value of contrast-enhanced helical CT scan with rectal contrast enema in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. | LitMetric

Background: The aim of this retrospective study is to assess the accuracy of single slice helical CT scan with intravenous, and rectal contrast (CTRC) in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA) in patients with suspected AA, with particular analysis of the diagnostic signs.

Participants And Methods: Abdomino-pelvic helical CTRC was performed on 75 consecutive patients with suspicion of AA. Radiologic diagnosis was compared with surgical/pathologic results and clinical follow-up. In addition, the CTRC examinations were retrospectively reviewed independently by two experienced radiologists using predefined diagnostic criteria. The sensitivity, specificity, and frequency of each diagnostic sign were calculated. The interobserver agreement and the statistical significance of the frequency for each diagnostic criterion were assessed using the Kappa and Fisher tests, respectively.

Results: The accuracy of helical CTRC in the diagnosis of AA was 94.7%, sensitivity 100%, specificity 90%, PPV 89.7%, and the NPV 100%. Wall enhancement and nonopacification of the appendix recorded the highest sensitivity and specificity (97% and 100%, 94% and 95%, respectively). Appendiceal thickness greater than 6 mm was present in 100% of true-positive cases. However, 26.5% of true-negative cases had also an appendiceal diameter exceeding 6 mm, a value used as a cut-off for normal appendiceal diameter. The highest interobserver agreement was recorded for appendiceal wall enhancement and for nonopacification of the appendix (K=0.97 and 0.88, respectively).

Conclusions: CTRC is an accurate and relatively fast technique for investigation of patients with suspected AA. A negative CTRC can exclude completely the diagnosis of AA. Nonopacification of the appendix and appendiceal wall enhancement are highly sensitive, specific, and reproducible, signs representing major criteria for the diagnosis of AA.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2004.11.022DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

wall enhancement
12
nonopacification appendix
12
helical scan
8
rectal contrast
8
diagnosis acute
8
acute appendicitis
8
ctrc diagnosis
8
patients suspected
8
helical ctrc
8
sensitivity specificity
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!