The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
US or CT for Diagnosis of Appendicitis in Children and Adults? A Meta-Analysis
Abstract
PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of ultrasonography (US) and computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of appendicitis in pediatric and adult populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical literature (from 1986 to 2004) was searched for articles on studies that used US, CT, or both as diagnostic tests for appendicitis in children (26 studies, 9356 patients) or adults (31 studies, 4341 patients). Prospective and retrospective studies were included if they separately reported the rate of true-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative diagnoses of appendicitis from US and CT findings compared with the positive and negative rates of appendicitis at surgery or follow-up. Clinical variables, technical factors, and test performance were extracted. Three readers assessed the quality of studies. RESULTS: Pooled sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of appendicitis in children were 88% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 86%, 90%) and 94% (95% CI: 92%, 95%), respectively, for US studies and 94% (95% CI: 92%, 97%) and 95% (95% CI: 94%, 97%), respectively, for CT studies. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis in adults were 83% (95% CI: 78%, 87%) and 93% (95% CI: 90%, 96%), respectively, for US studies and 94% (95% CI: 92%, 95%) and 94% (95% CI: 94%, 96%), respectively, for CT studies. CONCLUSION: From the diagnostic performance perspective, CT had a significantly higher sensitivity than did US in studies of children and adults; from the safety perspective, however, one should consider the radiation associated with CT, especially in children.
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
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Estimated Risks of Radiation-Induced Fatal Cancer from Pediatric CT
Brenner, D. J., Elliston, C. D., Hall, E. J., & Berdon, W. E. (2001) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.176.2.1760289 · Cited by 3,222 · cited 1×
“According to estimates of the lifetime risk of mortality attributable to cancer and the relative doses of radiation from CT, calculated as a function of age by using Monte Carlo methods (99,100), and assuming a hypothetical sample prevalence of 0.”
MethodEmpirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests.
Lijmer, J. G. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1061 · Cited by 1,861
Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.310.6982.752 · Cited by 508
Cited by
Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases
Song, F., Parekh, Hooper, L., Loke, Y., Ryder, J., Sutton, A., Hing, C., Kwok, C., Pang, C., & Harvey, I. (2010) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta14080 · Cited by 1,039
Solomkin, J. S., Mazuski, J. E., Bradley, J. S., Rodvold, K. A., Goldstein, E. J. C., Baron, E. J., O'Neill, P. J., Chow, A. W., Dellinger, E. P., Eachempati, S. R., et al. (2010) · Surgical Infections · doi:10.1089/sur.2009.9930 · Cited by 623
Sartelli, M., Chichom-Mefire, A., Labricciosa, F. M., Hardcastle, T., Abu-Zidan, F. M., Adesunkanmi, A. K., Ansaloni, L., Bala, M., Balogh, Z. J., Beltrán, M. A., et al. (2017) · World Journal of Emergency Surgery · doi:10.1186/s13017-017-0141-6 · Cited by 494
McDonald, R. J., Schwartz, K. M., Eckel, L. J., Diehn, F. E., Hunt, C. H., Bartholmai, B. J., Erickson, B. J., & Kallmes, D. F. (2015) · Academic Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.acra.2015.05.007 · Cited by 460
Diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis. EAES consensus development conference 2015
Gorter, R. R., Eker, H. H., Gorter-Stam, M. A. W., Abis, G. S. A., Acharya, A., Ankersmit, M., Antoniou, S. A., Arolfo, S., Babic, B., Boni, L., et al. (2016) · Surgical Endoscopy · doi:10.1007/s00464-016-5245-7 · Cited by 473
Metadata
- Authors
- Doria, A. S., Moineddin, R., Kellenberger, C. J., Epelman, M., Beyene, J., Schuh, S., Babyn, P. S., & Dick, P. T.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 2006-10
- Volume
- 241
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 83-94
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2099848524
- Cited by
- 737
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 7.49
- 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: US or CT for Diagnosis of Appendicitis in Children and Adults? A Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2411050913
- The paper
- Doria, A. S., Moineddin, R., Kellenberger, C. J., Epelman, M., Beyene, J., Schuh, S., Babyn, P. S., & Dick, P. T. (2006). US or CT for Diagnosis of Appendicitis in Children and Adults? A Meta-Analysis. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2411050913
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.