Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU · 2016
Comparison of US and CT on the effect on negative appendectomy and appendiceal perforation in adolescents and adults: A post-hoc analysis using propensity-score methods.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lee Jaebong, Ko Yousun, Ahn Soyeon, Park Ji Hoon, Kim Hwa Jung, Hwang Seung-Sik, Lee Kyoung Ho, for LOCAT Group
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare ultrasound (US) and CT as the preoperative first-line imaging modality in terms of negative appendectomy rate (NAR) and appendiceal perforation rate (APR) in adolescents and adults with suspected appendicitis.
METHODS: We included 2,030 patients in 11 sites who underwent appendectomy following US (n = 102) or CT (n = 1,928). Propensity-score (PS) adjusted and matched comparisons were conducted. Matching was performed with 1:1 and 1:3 ratios. Secondary analyses were performed by adding appendiceal perforation to PS model.
RESULTS: The unadjusted NAR difference between the unmatched US and CT groups (8% [8/102] versus 3.8% [73/1,928]) was 4.1 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -1.2, -9.3; p = 0.133). The PS adjusted difference was 4.1 percentage points (-1.8, -10.0; p = 0.169). The differences after 1:1 (9% [8/94] versus 5% [5/94]) and 1:3 (9% [8/94] versus 3.0% [8/271]) matching were 3 (-4, -10, p = 0.39) and 5.6 (-0.4, -11.6, p = 0.069) percentage points, respectively. The unadjusted APR difference between the unmatched US and CT groups (22% [22/102] versus 23.8% [459/1,928]) was -2.2 percentage points (-10.4, -6.0; p = 0.59). The PS-adjusted difference was -5.2 percentage points (-13.3, -2.9; p = 0.21). The differences after 1:1 (19% [18/94] versus 24% [23/94]) and 1:3 (19% [18/94] versus 20.7% [56/271]) matching were -5 (-17, -6, p = 0.38) and -1.5 (-10.8, -7.8, p = 0.75) percentage points, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of US instead of CT may increase NAR but does not significantly affect APR. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Ultrasound 44:401-410, 2016.
METHODS: We included 2,030 patients in 11 sites who underwent appendectomy following US (n = 102) or CT (n = 1,928). Propensity-score (PS) adjusted and matched comparisons were conducted. Matching was performed with 1:1 and 1:3 ratios. Secondary analyses were performed by adding appendiceal perforation to PS model.
RESULTS: The unadjusted NAR difference between the unmatched US and CT groups (8% [8/102] versus 3.8% [73/1,928]) was 4.1 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -1.2, -9.3; p = 0.133). The PS adjusted difference was 4.1 percentage points (-1.8, -10.0; p = 0.169). The differences after 1:1 (9% [8/94] versus 5% [5/94]) and 1:3 (9% [8/94] versus 3.0% [8/271]) matching were 3 (-4, -10, p = 0.39) and 5.6 (-0.4, -11.6, p = 0.069) percentage points, respectively. The unadjusted APR difference between the unmatched US and CT groups (22% [22/102] versus 23.8% [459/1,928]) was -2.2 percentage points (-10.4, -6.0; p = 0.59). The PS-adjusted difference was -5.2 percentage points (-13.3, -2.9; p = 0.21). The differences after 1:1 (19% [18/94] versus 24% [23/94]) and 1:3 (19% [18/94] versus 20.7% [56/271]) matching were -5 (-17, -6, p = 0.38) and -1.5 (-10.8, -7.8, p = 0.75) percentage points, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of US instead of CT may increase NAR but does not significantly affect APR. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Ultrasound 44:401-410, 2016.