Yuksekkaya 2004.
| Study characteristics | |||
| Patient sampling | Patients with suspected appendicitis were included. Patients younger than 14 years of age and pregnant women were excluded | ||
| Patient characteristics and setting | Age range: 14 to 62 years. 52% women Emergency Department in Turkey Disease spectrum: any suspicion of appendicitis |
||
| Index tests | Unenhanced single‐slice helical CT of the lower abdomen (General Electric, ProSpeed S) Slice thickness and slice interval: 5 mm. Voltage: 120 kV. mAs product: not reported |
||
| Target condition and reference standard(s) | Appendicitis. Histological examination was performed in patients who had an appendectomy; follow‐up was provided for patients who did not have surgery. Follow‐up consisted of monitoring readmission with appendectomy within 3 months | ||
| Flow and timing | 65 patients were included; all had CT. 37 patients had surgery; 27 had appendicitis confirmed by histology and 28 patients received follow‐up | ||
| Comparative | |||
| Criteria for CT diagnosis of appendicitis | Appendix diameter > 6 mm and periappendiceal stranding | ||
| Assessors of the CT‐scan | 2 radiologists | ||
| Notes | This study is reported in Turkish. We are grateful to Dr. Fatma Kara for extracting data from this study | ||
| Methodological quality | |||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Risk of bias | Applicability concerns |
| DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection | |||
| Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? | Unclear | ||
| Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? | Unclear | ||
| Does the study population represent an unselected sample of adults with suspected appendicitis? | Unclear | ||
| Unclear | Unclear | ||
| DOMAIN 2: Index Test All tests | |||
| Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? | Yes | ||
| If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? | Yes | ||
| Is the index test described in sufficient detail to permit its replication? | No | ||
| Was the analysis based on the initial evaluation of the CT‐scan by the radiologist on call? | Yes | ||
| Low | Unclear | ||
| DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard | |||
| Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? | No | ||
| Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? | Unclear | ||
| High | Low | ||
| DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing | |||
| Did all patients receive a reference standard? | Yes | ||
| Did all patients receive the same reference standard? | No | ||
| Did all patients with a positive CT‐scan have surgery? | No | ||
| Did all patients with a negative CT‐scan have clinical follow‐up? | No | ||
| Was the choice of reference standard independent of the result of the index test? | No | ||
| Were all patients included in the analyses? | Yes | ||
| High | |||
BMI: body mass index. CT: computed tomography. ED: Emergency Department. IV: intravenous. MRI: magnetic resonance imaging. SD: standard deviation.