↓ Skip to main content

Biomarkers of acute appendicitis: systematic review and cost–benefit trade-off analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
Title
Biomarkers of acute appendicitis: systematic review and cost–benefit trade-off analysis
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00464-016-5109-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amish Acharya, Sheraz R. Markar, Melody Ni, George B. Hanna

Abstract

Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency and can represent a challenging diagnosis, with a negative appendectomy rate as high as 20 %. This review aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of individual biomarkers in the diagnosis of appendicitis and appraise the quality of these studies. A systematic review of the literature between January 2000 and September 2015 using of PubMed, OvidMedline, EMBASE and Google Scholar was conducted. Studies in which the diagnostic accuracy, statistical heterogeneity and predictive ability for severity of several biomarkers could be elicited were included. Information regarding costs and process times was retrieved from the regional laboratory. European surgeons blinded to these reviews were independently asked to rank which characteristics of biomarkers were most important in acute appendicitis to inform a cost-benefit trade-off. Sensitivity testing and the QUADAS-2 tool were used to assess the robustness of the analysis and study quality, respectively. Sixty-two studies met the inclusion criteria and were assessed. Traditional biomarkers (such as white cell count) were found to have a moderate diagnostic accuracy (0.75) but lower costs in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Conversely, novel markers (pro-calcitonin, IL 6 and urinary 5-HIAA) were found to have high process-related costs including analytical times, but improved diagnostic accuracy. QUADAS-2 analysis revealed significant potential biases in the literature. When assessing biomarkers, an appreciation of the trade-offs between the costs and benefits of individual biomarkers is needed. Further studies should seek to investigate new biomarkers and address concerns over bias, in order to improve the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 161 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Master 16 10%
Student > Postgraduate 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 40 25%
Unknown 43 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 85 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 48 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 August 2016.
All research outputs
#14,857,703
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#3,575
of 6,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,627
of 366,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#98
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,056 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 366,897 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 172 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.