| Title |
A comparison between modified Alvarado score and RIPASA score in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Updates in Surgery, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13304-016-0381-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anand Singla, Satpaul Singla, Mohinder Singh, Deeksha Singla |
| Abstract |
Acute appendicitis is a common but elusive surgical condition and remains a diagnostic dilemma. It has many clinical mimickers and diagnosis is primarily made on clinical grounds, leading to the evolution of clinical scoring systems for pin pointing the right diagnosis. The modified Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems are two important scoring systems, for diagnosis of acute appendicitis. We prospectively compared the two scoring systems for diagnosing acute appendicitis in 50 patients presenting with right iliac fossa pain. The RIPASA score correctly classified 88 % of patients with histologically confirmed acute appendicitis compared with 48.0 % with modified Alvarado score, indicating that RIPASA score is more superior to Modified Alvarado score in our clinical settings. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 20% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 14 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 54% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 15 | 33% |
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 24 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,327,938
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Updates in Surgery
#346
of 641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,299
of 352,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Updates in Surgery
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 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 641 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 352,801 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.