These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: External Validation of Different Scoring Systems for Suspected Choledocholithiasis.
    Author: Tamini N, Bernasconi DP, Gianotti L.
    Journal: Dig Surg; 2019; 36(6):530-538. PubMed ID: 30636244.
    Abstract:
    AIM OF THE STUDY: The diagnosis of choledocholithiasis is challenging. Previously published scoring systems designed to calculate the risk of choledocholithiasis were evaluated to appraise the diagnostic performance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data of patients who were admitted between 2013 and 2015 with the following characteristics were retrieved: bile stone-related symptoms and signs, and indication to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. To validate and appraise the performance of the 6 scoring systems, the acknowledged domains of each metrics were applied to the present cohort. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, negative predictive, Youden index, and receiver operating characteristic curve with the area under the curve (AUC) values of the scores were calculated. RESULTS: Two-hundred patients were analyzed. The highest sensitivity and specificity were obtained from the Menezes' (96.6%) and Telem's (99.3%) metrics respectively. The Telem's and Menezes' scores had the best positive (75.0%) and negative (96.4%) predictive values respectively. The best accuracy, as computed by the Youden index and AUC, was found for the Soltan's scoring system (0.628 and 0.88, respectively). CONCLUSION: The available scoring systems are precise only in identifying patients with a negligible risk of common bile duct stone, but overall insufficiently accurate to suggest the routine use in clinical practice.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]