Downloads: 152

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
journal.pone.0136996.pdf1.19 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Title: The role of digital rectal examination for diagnosis of acute appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors: Takada, Toshihiko
Nishiwaki, Hiroki
Yamamoto, Yosuke  kyouindb  KAKEN_id  orcid (unconfirmed)
Noguchi, Yoshinori
Fukuma, Shingo  kyouindb  KAKEN_id  orcid (unconfirmed)
Yamazaki, Shin
Fukuhara, Shunichi  kyouindb  KAKEN_id
Author's alias: 高田, 俊彦
山本, 洋介
福間, 真悟
山崎, 新
福原, 俊一
Issue Date: 2-Sep-2015
Publisher: Public Library of Science
Journal title: PLOS ONE
Volume: 10
Issue: 9
Thesis number: e0136996
Abstract: Background: Digital rectal examination (DRE) has been traditionally recommendedto evaluate acute appendicitis, although several reports indicate its lack of utility for this diagnosis. No metaanalysis has examined DRE for diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Objectives: To assess the role of DRE for diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Data Sources: Cochrane Library, PubMed, and SCOPUS from the earliest available date of indexing through November 23, 2014, with no language restrictions. Study Selection: Clinical studies assessing DRE as an index test for diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted study data and assessed the quality, using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Bivariate random-effects models were used for the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) as point estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome measure was the diagnostic performance of DRE for diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Results: We identified 19 studies with a total of 7511 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.49 (95% CI 0.42-0.56) and 0.61 (95% CI 0.53-0.67), respectively. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 1.24 (95% CI 0.97-1.58) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.70-1.02), respectively. The DOR was 1.46 (0.95-2.26). Conclusion and Relevance: Acute appendicitis cannot be ruled in or out through the result of DRE. Reconsideration is needed for the traditional teaching that rectal examination should be performed routinely in all patients with suspected appendicitis.
Rights: © 2015 Takada et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
DOI(Published Version): 10.1371/journal.pone.0136996
PubMed ID: 26332867
Appears in Collections:Journal Articles

Show full item record

Export to RefWorks

Export Format: 

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.