The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin, C-reactive protein and white blood cell count for suspected acute appendicitis
Abstract
Background: The aim was to evaluate the diagnostic value of procalcitonin, C-reactive protein (CRP) and white blood cell count (WBC) in uncomplicated or complicated appendicitis by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: The Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched, along with reference lists of relevant articles, without language restriction, to September 2012. Original studies were selected that reported the performance of procalcitonin alone or in combination with CRP or WBC in diagnosing appendicitis. Test performance characteristics were summarized using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and bivariable random-effects models. Results: Seven qualifying studies (1011 suspected cases, 636 confirmed) from seven countries were identified. Bivariable pooled sensitivity and specificity were 33 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 21 to 47) and 89 (78 to 95) per cent respectively for procalcitonin, 57 (39 to 73) and 87 (58 to 97) per cent for CRP, and 62 (47 to 74) and 75 (55 to 89) per cent for WBC. ROC curve analysis showed that CRP had the highest accuracy (area under ROC curve 0·75, 95 per cent c.i. 0·71 to 0·78), followed by WBC (0·72, 0·68 to 0·76) and procalcitonin (0·65, 0·61 to 0·69). Procalcitonin was found to be more accurate in diagnosing complicated appendicitis, with a pooled sensitivity of 62 (33 to 84) per cent and specificity of 94 (90 to 96) per cent. Conclusion: Procalcitonin has little value in diagnosing acute appendicitis, with lower diagnostic accuracy than CRP and WBC. However, procalcitonin has greater diagnostic value in identifying complicated appendicitis. Given the imperfect accuracy of these three variables, new markers for improving medical decision-making in patients with suspected appendicitis are highly desirable.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 · Cited by 3,592
Reitsma, J. B., Glas, A. S., Rutjes, A. W. S., Scholten, R. J. P. M., Bossuyt, P. M., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022 · Cited by 3,369
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative.
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., de Vet, H. C. W., et al. (2003) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00010 · Cited by 3,219
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41 · Cited by 3,215
Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2261021292 · Cited by 3,215
High serum procalcitonin concentrations in patients with sepsis and infection
Assicot, M., Bohuon, C., Gendrel, D., Raymond, J., Carsin, H., & Guilbaud, J. (1993) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(93)90277-n · Cited by 2,197
Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy
Leeflang, M. M. G., Deeks, J. J., Gatsonis, C., & Bossuyt, P. M. M. (2008) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-149-12-200812160-00008 · Cited by 1,124
Procalcitonin increase after endotoxin injection in normal subjects
Dandona, P. (1994) · Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · doi:10.1210/jc.79.6.1605 · Cited by 965
US or CT for Diagnosis of Appendicitis in Children and Adults? A Meta-Analysis
Doria, A. S., Moineddin, R., Kellenberger, C. J., Epelman, M., Beyene, J., Schuh, S., Babyn, P. S., & Dick, P. T. (2006) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2411050913 · Cited by 737
Vons, C., Barry, C., Maitre, S., Pautrat, K., Leconte, M., Costaglioli, B., Karoui, M., Alves, A., Dousset, B., Valleur, P., et al. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60410-8 · Cited by 669
Cited by
Diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis: 2020 update of the WSES Jerusalem guidelines
Di Saverio, S., Podda, M., De Simone, B., Ceresoli, M., Augustin, G., Gori, A., Boermeester, M., Sartelli, M., Coccolini, F., Tarasconi, A., et al. (2020) · World Journal of Emergency Surgery · doi:10.1186/s13017-020-00306-3 · Cited by 1,446
Acute appendicitis: modern understanding of pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management
Bhangu, A., Søreide, K., Di Saverio, S., Assarsson, J. H., & Drake, F. T. (2015) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)00275-5 · Cited by 1,303
Metadata
- Authors
- Yu, C.-W., Juan, L.-I., Wu, M.-H., Shen, C.-J., Wu, J.-Y., & Lee, C.-C.
- Venue
- Journal of British Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2013-01-08
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 322-329
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2064311906
- Cited by
- 351
- References
- 25
- FWCI
- 4.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin, C-reactive protein and white blood cell count for suspected acute appendicitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bjs.9008
- The paper
- Yu, C.-W., Juan, L.-I., Wu, M.-H., Shen, C.-J., Wu, J.-Y., & Lee, C.-C. (2013). Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin, C-reactive protein and white blood cell count for suspected acute appendicitis. Journal of British Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9008
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
