The Alvarado score for predicting acute appendicitis: a systematic review

Background: The Alvarado score can be used to stratify patients with symptoms of suspected appendicitis; the validity of the score in certain patient groups and at different cut points is still unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the discrimination (diagnostic accuracy) and calibration performance of the Alvarado score. Methods: A systematic search of validation studies in Medline, Embase, DARE and The Cochrane library was performed up to April 2011. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the score at the two cut-off points: score of 5 (1 to 4 vs. 5 to 10) and score of 7 (1 to 6 vs. 7 to 10). Calibration was analysed across low (1 to 4), intermediate (5 to 6) and high (7 to 10) risk strata. The analysis focused on three sub-groups: men, women and children. Results: Forty-two studies were included in the review. In terms of diagnostic accuracy, the cut-point of 5 was good at 'ruling out' admission for appendicitis (sensitivity 99% overall, 96% men, 99% woman, 99% children). At the cut-point of 7, recommended for 'ruling in' appendicitis and progression to surgery, the score performed poorly in each subgroup (specificity overall 81%, men 57%, woman 73%, children 76%). The Alvarado score is well calibrated in men across all risk strata (low RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.28; intermediate 1.09, 0.86 to 1.37 and high 1.02, 0.97 to 1.08). The score over-predicts the probability of appendicitis in children in the intermediate and high risk groups and in women across all risk strata. Conclusions: The Alvarado score is a useful diagnostic 'rule out' score at a cut point of 5 for all patient groups. The score is well calibrated in men, inconsistent in children and over-predicts the probability of appendicitis in women across all strata of risk

Mailed versus frozen transport of nasal swabs for surveillance of respiratory bacteria in remote Indigenous communities in Australia

Background: Surveillance programs and research for acute respiratory infections in remote Australian communities are complicated by difficulties in the storage and transport of frozen samples to urban laboratories for testing. This study assessed the sensitivity of a simple method for transporting nasal swabs from a remote setting for bacterial polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing.Methods: We sampled every individual who presented to a remote community clinic over a three week period in August at a time of low influenza and no respiratory syncytial virus activity. Two anterior nasal swabs were collected from each participant. The left nare specimen was mailed to the laboratory via routine postal services. The right nare specimen was transported frozen. Testing for six bacterial species was undertaken using real-time PCR.Results: One hundred and forty participants were enrolled who contributed 150 study visits and paired specimens for testing. Respiratory illnesses accounted for 10% of the reasons for presentation. Bacteria were identified in 117 (78%) presentations for 110 (79.4%) individuals; Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae were the most common (each identified in 58% of episodes). The overall sensitivity for any bacterium detected in mailed specimens was 82.2% (95% CI 73.6, 88.1) compared to 94.8% (95% CI 89.4, 98.1) for frozen specimens. The sensitivity of the two methods varied by species identified.Conclusion: The mailing of unfrozen nasal specimens from remote communities appears to influence the utility of the specimen for bacterial studies, with a loss in sensitivity for the detection of any species overall. Further studies are needed to confirm our finding and to investigate the possible mechanisms of effect.Clinical trial registration: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number: ACTRN12609001006235