↓ Skip to main content

How to differentiate acute pelvic inflammatory disease from acute appendicitis ? A decision tree based on CT findings

Overview of attention for article published in European Radiology, September 2017
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

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
How to differentiate acute pelvic inflammatory disease from acute appendicitis ? A decision tree based on CT findings
Published in
European Radiology, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00330-017-5032-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kim El Hentour, Ingrid Millet, Emmanuelle Pages-Bouic, Fernanda Curros-Doyon, Nicolas Molinari, Patrice Taourel

Abstract

To construct a decision tree based on CT findings to differentiate acute pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) from acute appendicitis (AA) in women with lower abdominal pain and inflammatory syndrome. This retrospective study was approved by our institutional review board and informed consent was waived. Contrast-enhanced CT studies of 109 women with acute PID and 218 age-matched women with AA were retrospectively and independently reviewed by two radiologists to identify CT findings predictive of PID or AA. Surgical and laboratory data were used for the PID and AA reference standard. Appropriate tests were performed to compare PID and AA and a CT decision tree using the classification and regression tree (CART) algorithm was generated. The median patient age was 28 years (interquartile range, 22-39 years). According to the decision tree, an appendiceal diameter ≥ 7 mm was the most discriminating criterion for differentiating acute PID and AA, followed by a left tubal diameter ≥ 10 mm, with a global accuracy of 98.2 % (95 % CI: 96-99.4). Appendiceal diameter and left tubal thickening are the most discriminating CT criteria for differentiating acute PID from AA. • Appendiceal diameter and marked left tubal thickening allow differentiating PID from AA. • PID should be considered if appendiceal diameter is < 7 mm. • Marked left tubal diameter indicates PID rather than AA when enlarged appendix. • No pathological CT findings were identified in 5 % of PID patients.

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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 24%
Student > Postgraduate 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 15 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 52%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 16 38%
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 05 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,963,216
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from European Radiology
#2,332
of 4,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,316
of 316,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Radiology
#36
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,169 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 316,052 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.