4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

A novel noninvasive appendicitis score with a urine biomarker

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
Volume 54, Issue 1, Pages 91-96

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2018.10.025

Keywords

Pediatric; Diagnosis; Appendicitis score; Imaging; Urine LRG

Funding

  1. SingHealth Foundation Research Grant 2015, Singapore [SHF/FG591P/2015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The aim of our study was to develop an appendicitis score incorporating a urine biomarker, Latrine rich alpha-2-glycoprotein (LRG), for evaluation of children with abdominal pain. Methods: From January to August 2017 we prospectively enrolled children aged 4-16 years old admitted for suspected appendicitis. Urine samples for LRG analysis were obtained preoperatively and quantified by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) after correction for patient hydration status. The diagnosis of appendicitis was based on operative findings and histology. Logistic regression was used to identify prospective predictors. Results: A total of 148 patients were recruited, of which 42(28.4%) were confirmed appendicitis. Our Appendicitis Urinary Biomarker (AuB) model incorporated urine LRG with 3 clinical predictors: 'constant pain', 'right iliac fossa tenderness', pain on percussion'. Area under the ROC curve for AuB was 0.82 versus 0.78 for the Pediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS) on the same cohort of patients. A model calculated risk score of <0.15 is interpreted as low risk of appendicitis. Sensitivity for the AuB at this cutoff was 97.6%, specificity 37.7%, negative predictive value 97.6%, positive predictive value 38.3%, and negative likelihood ratio 0.06. Conclusion: The noninvasive AuB score appears promising as a diagnostic tool fur excluding appendicitis in children without the need for blood sampling. Type of study: Study of diagnostic test. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available