↓ Skip to main content

Appendiceal diameter: CT versus sonographic measurements

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Radiology, November 2015
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
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Appendiceal diameter: CT versus sonographic measurements
Published in
Pediatric Radiology, November 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00247-015-3491-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily S. Orscheln, Andrew T. Trout

Abstract

Ultrasound and CT are the dominant imaging modalities for assessment of suspected pediatric appendicitis, and the most commonly applied diagnostic criterion for both modalities is appendiceal diameter. The classically described cut-off diameter for the diagnosis of appendicitis is 6 mm when using either imaging modality. To demonstrate the fallacy of using the same cut-off diameter for both CT and US in the diagnosis of appendicitis. We conducted a retrospective review of patients younger than 18 years who underwent both US and CT of the appendix within 24 h. The shortest transverse dimension of the appendix was measured at the level of the proximal, mid and distal appendix on US and CT images. We compared mean absolute difference in appendiceal diameter between US and CT, using the paired t-test. We reviewed exams of 155 children (58.7% female) with a mean age of 11.3 ± 4.2 years; 38 of the children (24.5%) were diagnosed with appendicitis. The average time interval between US and CT was 7.0 ± 5.4 h. Mean appendiceal diameter measured by CT was significantly larger than that measured by US in cases without appendicitis (5.3 ± 1.0 mm vs. 4.7 ± 1.1 mm, P < 0.0001) and in cases with appendicitis (8.3 ± 2.2 mm vs. 7.0 ± 2.0 mm, P < 0.0001). Mean absolute diameter difference at any location along the appendix was 1.3-1.4 mm in normal appendices and 2 mm in cases of appendicitis. Measured appendiceal diameter differs between US and CT by 1-2 mm, calling into question use of the same diameter cut-off (6 mm) for both modalities for the diagnosis of 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 7%
Unknown 26 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 18%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 71%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Unknown 5 18%
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 02 March 2016.
All research outputs
#14,712,301
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Radiology
#1,249
of 2,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,558
of 252,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Radiology
#13
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,086 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 252,477 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.