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: Detection and False-Referral Rates of 2-mSv CT Relative to Standard-Dose CT for Appendiceal Perforation: Pragmatic Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.
    Author: Kim HY, Ko Y, Park JH, Lee KH, LOCAT Group.
    Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Oct; 215(4):874-884. PubMed ID: 32783554.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to compare diagnostic performance of 2-mSv CT and standard-dose CT (SDCT) for the diagnosis of perforated appendicitis in adolescents and young adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We used the intention-to-treat analysis set of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial involving 3074 patients (age range, 15-44 years) with suspected appendicitis and 161 radiologists from 20 hospitals. The patients were randomized to undergo either 2-mSv CT or SDCT. Predefined endpoints were sensitivity and specificity. Considering potential verification bias caused by the difference in diagnostic interventions (2-mSv CT vs SDCT), we added endpoints of detection rate (DR) and false-referral rate. The reference standards were surgical or pathologic findings. We used Fisher exact tests. Sensitivity analyses included the following: first, a per-protocol analysis; second, an analysis of a surgical reference standard but not a pathologic reference standard; and, third, an analysis to adjust for site clustering. We tested for heterogeneity in DR and false-referral rate across various patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS. The 2-mSv CT and SDCT groups were comparable regarding DR (5.1% [78/1535] vs 4.9% [76/1539]; 95% CI for the difference, -1.4 to 1.7 percentage points; p = 0.87), false-referral rate (3.1% [48/1535] vs 3.1% [47/1539]; 95% CI for the difference, -1.2 to 1.3 percentage points; p = 0.92), sensitivity (42.9% [78/182] vs 43.2% [76/176]; 95% CI for the difference, -10.6 to 9.9 percentage points; p > 0.99), and specificity (89.2% [305/342] vs 91.2% [354/388]; 95% CI for the difference, -6.4 to 2.3 percentage points; p = 0.38). Sensitivity analyses showed similar results. We found no significant subgroup heterogeneity. CONCLUSION. The performance of 2-mSv CT, with limited sensitivity but high specificity, is comparable to that of SDCT for the diagnosis of appendiceal perforation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]