The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Alvarado score for predicting acute appendicitis: a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
Background: The Alvarado score can be used to stratify patients with symptoms of suspected appendicitis; the validity of the score in certain patient groups and at different cut points is still unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the discrimination (diagnostic accuracy) and calibration performance of the Alvarado score. Methods: A systematic search of validation studies in Medline, Embase, DARE and The Cochrane library was performed up to April 2011. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the score at the two cut-off points: score of 5 (1 to 4 vs. 5 to 10) and score of 7 (1 to 6 vs. 7 to 10). Calibration was analysed across low (1 to 4), intermediate (5 to 6) and high (7 to 10) risk strata. The analysis focused on three sub-groups: men, women and children. Results: Forty-two studies were included in the review. In terms of diagnostic accuracy, the cut-point of 5 was good at 'ruling out' admission for appendicitis (sensitivity 99% overall, 96% men, 99% woman, 99% children). At the cut-point of 7, recommended for 'ruling in' appendicitis and progression to surgery, the score performed poorly in each subgroup (specificity overall 81%, men 57%, woman 73%, children 76%). The Alvarado score is well calibrated in men across all risk strata (low RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.28; intermediate 1.09, 0.86 to 1.37 and high 1.02, 0.97 to 1.08). The score over-predicts the probability of appendicitis in children in the intermediate and high risk groups and in women across all risk strata. Conclusions: The Alvarado score is a useful diagnostic 'rule out' score at a cut point of 5 for all patient groups. The score is well calibrated in men, inconsistent in children and over-predicts the probability of appendicitis in women across all strata of risk.
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
Cited by
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
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
Di Saverio, S., Sibilio, A., Giorgini, E., Biscardi, A., Villani, S., Coccolini, F., Smerieri, N., Pisano, M., Ansaloni, L., Sartelli, M., et al. (2014) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000000560 · Cited by 273
Metadata
- Authors
- Ohle, R., O'Reilly, F., O'Brien, K. K., Fahey, T., & Dimitrov, B. D.
- Venue
- BMC Medicine
- Published
- 2011-12
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 139-139
- ISSN
- 1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2076082977
- Cited by
- 456
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: The Alvarado score for predicting acute appendicitis: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1741-7015-9-139
- The paper
- Ohle, R., O'Reilly, F., O'Brien, K. K., Fahey, T., & Dimitrov, B. D. (2011). The Alvarado score for predicting acute appendicitis: a systematic review. BMC Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-9-139
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.