Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Pediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS) was designed and validated to distinguish acute appendicitis from non-surgical abdominal pain, but not to differentiate between simple and complicated appendicitis. It is important to clarify that our intention is not to challenge the original purpose of the Pediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS), which was developed to support the diagnosis of appendicitis in children. Instead, our study evaluated the potential utility of a PAS score ≥8 in distinguishing between simple appendicitis (congestive or suppurative) and complicated appendicitis (gangrenous or perforated) in pediatric patients. METHODS: The cohort type study, the population evaluated, 86 children aged 4 to 14 years with preoperative diagnosis of appendicitis, grouped into 2 groups: complicated appendicitis (43) and simple appendicitis (43) exposed to PAS≥8 or PAS˂8. RESULTS: The effectiveness of PAS≥8 in diagnosing the severity of appendicitis showed an AUC of 59.3% and increases the probability of severity by 2.246 times (CI:95% 0.917-5.50 p=0.077) in the predictive model. There were statistically significant differences in cough sensitivity/jump/percussion, pain migration, anorexia, leukocytosis and neutrophilia, between PAS≥8 or PAS˂8. CONCLUSION: PAS≥8 alone is not sufficient to diagnose the severity of acute appendicitis with 59.3% predictive diagnostic accuracy and increases 2.246 times the probability of presenting with the severity of appendicitis in the logistic predictive model.
Full text
621 characters
· extracted from
oa-doi-fallback
· click to expand
There is a newer version available for this {{ publicationType }}. View latest version
{{ publication.field_name }}
{{ publication.subfield_name }}
Copyright: © {{ publicationYear }} {{ publication.presentation_authors[0].full_name + (publication.presentation_authors.length > 1 ? ' et al' : '') }}. This is an open access publication distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Check the {{ publicationType | capitalize }} Source for copyright and license information.
Listen on
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.